SSPX communique to Rome

[JReducation]

Umm. Regularly attend the EF, as in most Sundays and/or weekdays!

That would not be allowed. We have it on Weds and we have it certain feasts. Our big problem is that the EF follows the Roman calendar of 1962. We follow the Franciscan calendar of 2011. When we celebrate the EF, we always have to move things around to fit the calendar. We can only use it when the two calendars coincide, which is often, except during the seasons. Easter never coincides. Forget that one. The EF calendar has X Sunday after Pentecost, etc. It does not have the Little Lent either. Forget Sept 29 to Nov 11.

But I attend one if there is one available. I have no problems with the mass. I go to EF, OF, Franciscan, Dominican, Carmelite, Benedictine and Cistercians forms and I’m fine at all of them. All I do is reread the passage in the constitution that says that the brothers shall have no opinions other than those allowed by the Church and the superior. Once I do that, I hang up my opinions and feelings at the door and I’m good to go. It’s easy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

PS. I should add that this applies to every form of the mass, not just the EF. We’re not allowed to show a feeling for any of them. We just don’t have feelings about any form. We have feelings about silliness. Whatever is allowed by the Church, we are commanded under penalty of losing our souls to feel as the Church feels.

There is no asking ourselves how do I like altar girls, Gregorian Chant, Latin, or EMHC. The way that Francis wrote the rule it’s basically a dictatorship from on high with him as the dictator. In his admonitions he dictates every feeling that we may have. Just in case he misses something, he says that we must agree with the popes, bishops and his successors. There is not much room to stop and ask yourself how you feel about something. That’s the coolest part of being poor. You don’t own anything.

For example, the FI have the extraordinary form most of the time, because their superior general feels that it’s good for them. When he’s gone, the next superior general can change it. They will adapt and smile through it. The MFVA’s have the OF in Latin, because their current superior general likes it. They didn’t have it at first. When the change of superiors came, everyone in the community had to change the way they felt. It’s that easy.

We never had the EF until I became superior general. Now that I’m superior general, I say that we can have it as long as it remains extraordinary as SP says. When I’m no longer superior, the next guy can change it and we will all adapt without feeling anything or having any opinions, unless the superior asks for an opinion, which happens often.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Justin_Swanton]

It is objectively a mortal sin.

Sunday obligation – grave matter

I’m properly catechized – full knowledge

I’m choosing not to go, because . . . – full freedom

Bottom line: a Catholic whose sense of reverence and propriety is seriously troubled by what he sees in a particular parish is guilty of mortal sin if that is the only church he can attend on Sunday and he chooses, out of a desire for spiritual peace of mind, not to go.

That is rather a big stick.

I’m reminded of St Paul who did not eat meat sacrificed to idols, even though he was free to do so, in order not to trouble the Faith of the weaker brethren. I’m not calling SSPX faithful ‘weaker brethren’ - just making a distinction between appreciating the real spiritual difficulties SSPX faithful can have in going to a New Mass and making allowances for it, as opposed to clubbing them into the parish church.

Understood, of course, that this is different from hypothetical SSPX faithful who have no real problem with the New Mass but only choose not to go because their SSPX priest tells them so.

Let me try a stick of a different shape. The New Mass as promulgated by the Church has its letter in the Missal and its spirit in Sacrosanctum Concilium. The priest who celebrated that puppet Mass (link to its video somewhere in this thread) - to what extent was he culpable of making a travesty of the Mass and contravening the guidelines and directives of Sacrosanctum Concilium? As far as mortal sin?

This is not to say that every parish Mass is necessarily indigestible to someone from an SSPX background, just that some of them are, and not everyone has the luxury of being able to pick and choose between parishes (which, if I’m not mistaken, a layperson doesn’t really have the right to do anyway). There are New Masses that even a Bishop Williamson encouraged Traditional faithful to attend (there being no Tridentine Mass available then). The situation is not black and white.

 

[Lormar]

We were told (and I believe that it is still told) that if we go to the new Mass, we put our Catholic faith in danger. We were told that if you lose your faith, it is very hard to get back. We were also told that attendance at the new Mass was a sin. The sin was mortal or venial depending on your motives for attending.

 

[GloriaMaria]

This is not to say that every parish Mass is necessarily indigestible to someone from an SSPX background, just that some of them are, and not everyone has the luxury of being able to pick and choose between parishes (which, if I’m not mistaken, a layperson doesn’t really have the right to do anyway). There are New Masses that even a Bishop Williamson encouraged Traditional faithful to attend (there being no Tridentine Mass available then). The situation is not black and white.

Fact: Bishop Williamson just in the last week presented an “Eleison Comments” where he said that Traditional Catholics should not go to any diocesan approved Traditional Mass, because of danger to their immortal souls.

 

[GloriaMaria]

In 2009, The Holy Father published a clarification for Bishops. It is on the Vatican website. It stated that the priests and bishops of the SSPX are suspended and “exercise no legitimate ministry in the church”. I do not know how to copy and paste it here.

This was after the statement be the ED commission. Does it change the allowance of the SSPX Mass to fulfill the Sunday Obligation?

Sorry, if this is an obvious answer. I honestly don’t know. Just a pretty simple layperson here, and I’ve been operating under a number of false conclusions. Don’t trust myself. God Bless.

 

[Melchior_1]

Fact: Bishop Williamson just in the last week presented an “Eleison Comments” where he said that Traditional Catholics should not go to any diocesan approved Traditional Mass, because of danger to their immortal souls.

Yeah, I don’t think he’s coming back home to Rome.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Fact: Bishop Williamson just in the last week presented an “Eleison Comments” where he said that Traditional Catholics should not go to any diocesan approved Traditional Mass, because of danger to their immortal souls.

I know. My example goes back thirty years. (gosh, is it that long?) I was present when he told us to “hang on to Fr X’s [the Jesuit priest who celebrated a sung Latin NOM] apron strings.” I can’t imagine him saying that now.

 

[JReducation]

Bottom line: a Catholic whose sense of reverence and propriety is seriously troubled by what he sees in a particular parish is guilty of mortal sin if that is the only church he can attend on Sunday and he chooses, out of a desire for spiritual peace of mind, not to go.

That is rather a big stick.

It is a big stick, but it’s Canon Law. St. Paul does not write Canon Law, Peter does. There are very few allowances that the Church makes for missing Sunday mass, a clown mass is not one of them.

What the priest did violates the rubrics, but it does not invalidate the mass. Therefore, the faithful have an obligation to attend, if that’s all there is available. The sacrifice of Christ is not outdone by a priest who is into nonsense. We cannot stay away, because of the nonsense. We must be careful not to let the nonsense dictate to us. We are called to mass for three reasons:

a. The be nurtured by the Word of God

b. To offer sacrifice

c. To enter into communion with Christ and each other.

Those three things are not undone by a clown mask, as disconcerting as that is. I certainly would feel that this is totally silly.

We were told (and I believe that it is still told) that if we go to the new Mass, we put our Catholic faith in danger. We were told that if you lose your faith, it is very hard to get back. We were also told that attendance at the new Mass was a sin. The sin was mortal or venial depending on your motives for attending.

Whoever told you this abused his authority and objectively committed a grave sin. He is undermining the law of the Church.

Fact: Bishop Williamson just in the last week presented an “Eleison Comments” where he said that Traditional Catholics should not go to any diocesan approved Traditional Mass, because of danger to their immortal souls.

With all due respect to the good bishop, he is out of order. He cannot give advice contrary to the mind of the Church. That’s the meaning of collegiality. It means that bishops speak in communion with Peter and the college of bishops, not over their heads.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ProVobis]

Bottom line: a Catholic whose sense of reverence and propriety is seriously troubled by what he sees in a particular parish is guilty of mortal sin if that is the only church he can attend on Sunday and he chooses, out of a desire for spiritual peace of mind, not to go.

That is rather a big stick.

Is this canon applicable?

Can. 1248 §1 The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a catholic rite either on a holyday itself or on the evening of the previous day.

1248 §2 If it is impossible to assist at a eucharistic celebration, either because no sacred minister is available or for some other grave reason, the faithful are strongly recommended to take part in a liturgy of the Word, if there be such in the parish church or some other sacred place, which is celebrated in accordance with the provisions laid down by the diocesan Bishop; or to spend an appropriate time in prayer, whether personally or as a family or, as occasion presents, in a group of families.

 

[JReducation]

In 2009, The Holy Father published a clarification for Bishops. It is on the Vatican website. It stated that the priests and bishops of the SSPX are suspended and “exercise no legitimate ministry in the church”. I do not know how to copy and paste it here.

This was after the statement be the ED commission. Does it change the allowance of the SSPX Mass to fulfill the Sunday Obligation?

Sorry, if this is an obvious answer. I honestly don’t know. Just a pretty simple layperson here, and I’ve been operating under a number of false conclusions. Don’t trust myself. God Bless.

This means that they cannot make laws, their absolution from sin is questionable. Their confirmations are questionable. They do not have the right to enter any diocese. Their bishops have no authority over the faithful or over their priests. Everything that they do is illegal.

However, their mass is illegal, but valid, which is what ED Commission has said. Nothing has changed.

Is this canon applicable?

Canon 1248 refers to grave reasons established by tradition such as health, age, weather, civil unrest. Canon Law has to be read in the context of canonical tradition. Feeling uncomfortable at a clown mass is not a grave reason under Canon Law. A discomfort does not impair one’s physical ability to attend mass.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

 

[Iotaunum]

No, they would not continue as they were before. Before there were several differences.

1. The bishops were excommunicated, not the laity.
2. When the excommunications were lifted, it the bishops and priests were in an irregular status, not the laity.
3. If the SSPX goes into schism, any layman who chooses the SSPX over the mainstream Church will also be in schism… Something big will have changed. These people will no longer be Catholic. They will have severed their ties with the Catholic Church. This is not “life as usual” even though it may look that way on the surface.

As to stay at home rather than go to an OF mass, that’s not an option that the Church gives. Therefore, no priest has the authority to trump the Church and give such an option. That in itself constitutes a schismatic act. The priest who makes such a statement, while he may not be in schism, is creating his on laws. That is just a illegal, irresponsible and immoral as the priest that says to someone that it’s OK to use birth control. Except that freely missing Sunday mass is higher on the hierarchy of sin than birth control.

Being unable to attend mass is when you’re sick, have no transportation, the weather does not allow it, there is political turmoil and it’s not safe, you’re too young or too old to go alone. Those are legitimate reasons. “I cringe because of what I see at mass is not a morally acceptable reason to miss mass. The mass is about me worshiping God, not about God and priest pleasing me.”

I’m sure that Mary and John cringed at the foot of the cross, but they were there. There are millions of Catholics who cringe at different things that happen at mass or in their parishes, but we bit the bullet and sit through it. In a way, one is giving oneself a dispensation that the Church does not allow. Here again, one is creating laws that don’t exist.

We must always be careful to worship with reverence; however, we must also be very careful never to trump the Church by overruling her laws.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

My answer was more about the practical outcome. I believe most will continue at the same Mass they go to now. Yes, things will have changed as you say. However, if you remember when the bishops were excommunicated the SSPX denied it had occured in fact. We all know the arguments from both sides and I am not putting a case foward here since I know the position of the Vatican. However, as far as I can forsee I think that any general penulty on the leadership, clergy, religious or laity assosiated with the SSPX will be viewed in the same way. I know you disagree strongly with this, but I think this is how the SSPX will see it. I believe that things will continue as usual. I am only making an educated guess - things could go quite different and the majority leave the SSPX - I don;t know, but this is what i predict. As you said before brother, I hope things never go that far that we have to find out. I hope an agreement can be made which is of benefit to all and for the overall good of the Church. In the mean time, I will just continue to pray and try not to think that far ahead.

Regarding our Lady and st John cringing at the foot of the cross - well I think this is somewhat different. The practices of the local priests and Masses I cannot discuss here, but I had stopped attending before I sought out an SSPX Mass. I know what you are saying though - I really do.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

It is a big stick, but it’s Canon Law. St. Paul does not write Canon Law, Peter does. There are very few allowances that the Church makes for missing Sunday mass, a clown mass is not one of them.

What the priest did violates the rubrics, but it does not invalidate the mass. Therefore, the faithful have an obligation to attend, if that’s all there is available. The sacrifice of Christ is not outdone by a priest who is into nonsense. We cannot stay away, because of the nonsense. We must be careful not to let the nonsense dictate to us. We are called to mass for three reasons:

a. The be nurtured by the Word of God

b. To offer sacrifice

c. To enter into communion with Christ and each other.

Those three things are not undone by a clown mask, as disconcerting as that is. I certainly would feel that this is totally silly.

One more then I must hit the sack.

The law obligating Mass attendance is aimed at a Mass as celebrated according to the mind of the Church. In a normal situation a parish Mass would not be anything else, but we live in abnormal times. The Mass is a liturgy, and the whole purpose of a liturgy is to raise the heart and mind to the supernatural realities it expresses, disposing the participant to receive the spiritual blessings contained therein.

If the way a Mass is celebrated objectively troubles one to such a degree that this spiritual participation cannot take place, then the obligation of attending it is made void. Laws are made for our spiritual benefit, not just to be obeyed. By ‘objectively’ I mean things that are really a problem, not a Protestant hymn that in itself is inoffensive.

With this in mind, there is no way on God’s green earth I would ever feel obligated to attend a Mass with giant puppets looking like Picasso versions of Big Brother…a liturgical dancer that does a duet with the Missal at the incensing of the Gospel…a host that looks like a failed effort from a first cookery lesson…and all the rest. Sorry Brother. There we will definitively have to agree to disagree.

 

[ProVobis]

Canon 1248 refers to grave reasons established by tradition such as health, age, weather, civil unrest. Canon Law has to be read in the context of canonical tradition. Feeling uncomfortable at a clown mass is not a grave reason under Canon Law. A discomfort does not impair one’s physical ability to attend mass.

Okay but it seems as if Canon 844 looks at it a little bit differently.

Can. 844 §2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from noncatholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

 

[JReducation]

My answer was more about the practical outcome. I believe most will continue at the same Mass they go to now. Yes, things will have changed as you say. However, if you remember when the bishops were excommunicated the SSPX denied it had occured in fact. We all know the arguments from both sides and I am not putting a case foward here since I know the position of the Vatican. However, as far as I can forsee I think that any general penulty on the leadership, clergy, religious or laity assosiated with the SSPX will be viewed in the same way. I know you disagree strongly with this, but I think this is how the SSPX will see it. I believe that things will continue as usual. I am only making an educated guess - things could go quite different and the majority leave the SSPX - I don;t know, but this is what i predict. As you said before brother, I hope things never go that far that we have to find out. I hope an agreement can be made which is of benefit to all and for the overall good of the Church. In the mean time, I will just continue to pray and try not to think that far ahead.

I understand what you’re saying. It’s the same situation as the Orthodox. They blew Rome off. But as centuries passed, some started to reconsider what their ancestors had done and many of the Eastern Churches came back into full communion. Today, the rest are looking at the situation again. In other words, both sides are realizing that this schism is serious business and has affected the lives of Orthodox and Catholics alike…

The first generation of schismatics usually feels no remorse, because it feels justified or it finds ways of justifying itself. Luther and company justified themselves by pointing to the abuses in the Church. They were right about the abuses. That’s why we had a counter reformation. They were wrong to blow off the Church instead of join in the repair work as did people like St. Dominic, St. Francis, St. Bernard, St Teresa of Avila and St. Ignatius.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

Okay but it seems as if Canon 844 looks at it a little bit differently.

Canon 844 is talking about the Orthodox, the Old Catholics and some of the other Churches that are in schism. It is very specific.

Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it

One has to look at canonical tradition and ask how has canon law used terms such as

**Necessity

spiritual advantage**

We find that it has only been applied in cases of war, political oppression such as was the case in the USSR or imminent death.

In that case, there is a necessity and there is a spiritual advantage. Either you receive the sacraments or go without them.

If one lives in an area where there are Catholic churches, there is no necessity to go to a non-Catholic priest. Since there is no necessity, the use of the same creates a spiritual disadvantage, because one is in violation of canon law.

Again, traditionalists have to be very careful not to fall into the, I don’t know what to call it, of trying to find a loophole in canon law in order to stay with the SSPX should it go into schism.

It’s best to pray that the schism never happens and look around for a parish that is comfortable, should it happen. If not a Latin Catholic, then an Eastern Catholic parish.

In this regard, I have great admiration for the Eastern Catholics. I live in an area that is several thousand square miles and there are only three Eastern Catholic parishes. Those folks either make the trip or they put up with a Roman Catholic mass.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Lormar]

One more then I must hit the sack.

The law obligating Mass attendance is aimed at a Mass as celebrated according to the mind of the Church. In a normal situation a parish Mass would not be anything else, but we live in abnormal times. The Mass is a liturgy, and the whole purpose of a liturgy is to raise the heart and mind to the supernatural realities it expresses, disposing the participant to receive the spiritual blessings contained therein.

If the way a Mass is celebrated objectively troubles one to such a degree that this spiritual participation cannot take place, then the obligation of attending it is made void. Laws are made for our spiritual benefit, not just to be obeyed. By ‘objectively’ I mean things that are really a problem, not a Protestant hymn that in itself is inoffensive.

With this in mind, there is no way on God’s green earth I would ever feel obligated to attend a Mass with giant puppets looking like Picasso versions of Big Brother…a liturgical dancer that does a duet with the Missal at the incensing of the Gospel…a host that looks like a failed effort from a first cookery lesson…and all the rest. Sorry Brother. There we will definitively have to agree to disagree.

Justin, I understand very well what you are saying.

But I think that the reason why nothing changes in our local parishes is because people high-tail it out in search of their spiritual comfort when what they are experiencing in the parish is seemingly more than they can bear.

 

[Dee_S]

1. If the SSPX goes into schism, any layman who chooses the SSPX over the mainstream Church will also be in schism… Something big will have changed. These people will no longer be Catholic. They will have severed their ties with the Catholic Church. This is not “life as usual” even though it may look that way on the surface.

As to stay at home rather than go to an OF mass, that’s not an option that the Church gives. Therefore, no priest has the authority to trump the Church and give such an option. That in itself constitutes a schismatic act.

“I cringe because of what I see at mass is not a morally acceptable reason to miss mass. The mass is about me worshiping God, not about God and priest pleasing me.”
Br. JR, FFV

To offer some facts in support of the discussion currently taking place, I am posting the entire letter of Msgr Perl of the Ecclesia Dei Commission which is posted on the Una Voce site (an organization that promotes the Tridentine Mass in communion with the Holy See)- that was vociferously criticized over the years by the SSPX. The fact they did so, does not change the contents nor has it changed how it applies up to the present day:
Protocol 539/99

PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO “ECCLESIA DEI”**
N. 539/99 Rome, 28 September 1999

---

Mr. Joseph E. Rebbert**
10024 Piebald Lane
Dewey
Arizona 86327
U.S.A.**

---

Dear Mr. Rebbert,

** We wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter to His Eminence Cardinal
Ratzinger. It has been transmitted to this Pontifical Commission as dealing
with matters that come within our particular competence.**

** With regard to the schismatic Society of St. Pius X we can say the
following:

1. The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained,
   but suspended, that is prohibited from exercising their priestly functions
   because they are not properly incardinated in a diocese or religious
   institute in full communion with the Holy See (cf. canon 265) and also
   because those ordained after the schismatic episcopal ordinations were
   ordained by an excommunicated bishop. They are also excommunicated if
   they adhere to the schism (cf. Ecclesia Del, #5, c). While up to now the
   Holy See has not defined what this .adherence consists in, one could point
   to a wholesale condemnation of the Church since the Second Vatican Council
   and a refusal to be in communion with it (cf. canon 751 on the definition
   of schism). Further, it is likely that these priests, after eleven years
   in a society whose head is now an excommunicated bishop, effectively adhere
   to the schism. . .**

** 2. Concretely this means that the Masses offered by the priests of
the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to Canon
Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, however, require that the
priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since
that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid. It
remains true, however, that, if the faithful are genuinely ignorant that the
priests of the Society of St. Pius X do not have the proper faculty to
absolve, the Church supplied these faculties so that the sacrament was valid
(cf. Code of Canon Law c. 144).**

** 3. The situation of the faithful attending chapels of the Society of
St. Pius X is more complicated. They may attend Mass there primarily
because of an attraction to the earlier form of the Roman Rite in which
case they incur no penalty. The difficulty is that the longer they
frequent these chapels, the more likely it is that they will slowly imbibe
the schismatic mentality which stands in judgement of the Church and
refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff and communion with the members of
the Church subject to him. If that becomes the case, then it would seem
that they adhere to the schism and are consequently excommunicated.
For these reasons this Pontifical Commission cannot encourage you
to frequent the chapel of the Society of St. Pius X. On the other hand it
would seem that you are among those who attend Mass in chapels
of the Society of St. Pius X because of the
reverence and devotion which they find there, because of their
attraction to the traditional Latin Mass and not because
they refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff or reject communion with the
members of the Church subject to him. At the same time it must be admitted
that – this is an irregular situation, even if the circumstances which have
caused it have come about through no fault of your own, and it should be
remedied as soon as circumstances permit.**

** With prayerful best wishes I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Msgr. Camille Perl
Secretary**
unavoce.org/resources/protocol-53999/

 

[Dee_S]

Justin, I understand very well what you are saying.

But I think that the reason why nothing changes in our local parishes is because people high-tail it out in search of their spiritual comfort when what they are experiencing in the parish is seemingly more than they can bear.

:thumbsup:I so agree! Those of us wanting change have several options open to us. e.g. we can try talk to the parish priest, or take it higher and write to our Bishop. Failing that we can write to Rome directly.

In the case of wanting the Tridentine Mass, the Ecclesia Dei website has all the information, advice and help you could wish for. They will even contact your local Bishop to discuss his reasons for not granting your requests etc. As a bonus, we now have Summorum Pontificam to back up what were already legitimate requests. Add to that, the organization called Una Voce also has a website and operates internationally. Rather interestingly, they get small groups of people to represent them and they supply the support, advice etc so they can organize and motivate the TLM in their parish/diocese.

There’s lot’s to be found out there to help establish the TLM in your diocese, if that is what you want.

 

[Dee_S]

We were told (and I believe that it is still told) that if we go to the new Mass, we put our Catholic faith in danger. We were told that if you lose your faith, it is very hard to get back. We were also told that attendance at the new Mass was a sin. The sin was mortal or venial depending on your motives for attending.

Been there,…done that. It is a very real grace to see the light and make your way back to Holy Mother Church. All I can say is to pray always…and especially the petition “Lord, that I might see.”

As Br JR said earlier, it would be tragic should the SSPX decide not to return to full communion with the Church. Those folk, however well intentioned, who stay with them will share their schism.

I don’t think any of us truly realise how urgent it is to pray for Bishop Fellay, that he continues and completes the movement to bring the SSPX and it’s followers back to Holy Mother Church. This video (I have posted it before) of the exclusive interview of his on CNS May 15, 2012 is really great, and anyone can be proud of the gentle courage he displays and his gratitude towards the Holy Father.

youtube.com/watch?v=DdnJigNzTuY

Don’t let Bishop Williamson put you offas I mentioned in an earlier post,…he was singing the wrong tune & he was making fun of the cow’s in the pasture at Menzingen