SSPX Priest Celebrates Mass in Saint Peter's Basilica

[Hoosier_Daddy]

That’s what I’d like to know. Even if it was a private mass just for themselves during their meetings, I don’t think it looks good for the Church to allow schismatics to say mass there. If schismatics are allowed to say the mass in St. Peter’s, then why not allow all Christian denominations in there? How about a Billy Graham crusade, or let’s get a Lutheran service, or maybe that Mars Hill guy or TD Jakes. Why not mix it up a little? Ecumenism gone nuts in my opinion. Catholics are not supposed to go to their churches. Why are they in ours?

I believe it is against forum rules to call them schismatic. You need to recognize that they are not classified that way, even if you do not like the situation.

Of note is the fact that they were allowed to do this. It was a real Mass. And it has been done before. If you wish to speculate on the prudence of those who are to be given more respect by the laity than any regular Joe and why they would allow this perhaps you should reflect on the pastoral position taken by our current Pope and apply it to this situation.

For before he was Pope Francis, Bergoliglio said they were “certainly Catholic”

If your position is that a desecration occurred or a fraud has been perpetrated then you need to offer proof. Other than that, I think it is best to be charitable and assume that those who allowed this have pure and holy motives.

 

[YoungTradCath]

You don’t have to get permission from the Pope to celebrate Mass in the basilica. The Pope does not deal with the day-to-day operations of it.

 

[boomerang]

I believe it is against forum rules to call them schismatic. You need to recognize that they are not classified that way, even if you do not like the situation.

Of note is the fact that they were allowed to do this. It was a real Mass. And it has been done before. If you wish to speculate on the prudence of those who are to be given more respect by the laity than any regular Joe and why they would allow this perhaps you should reflect on the pastoral position taken by our current Pope and apply it to this situation.

For before he was Pope Francis, Bergoliglio said they were “certainly Catholic”

If your position is that a desecration occurred or a fraud has been perpetrated then you need to offer proof. Other than that, I think it is best to be charitable and assume that those who allowed this have pure and holy motives.

“Schismatic”. That’s my terminology. I understand some of them have been excommunicated. They are not in communion with Rome. They have appointed their own bishops. We are not supposed to go to their churches. It seems there is a ‘schism’ going on here, no matter what other may call it. That said, don’t you think it looks bad, or odd, or strange that it’s apparently OK if they have a mass in St. Peter’s? I mean really, shouldn’t that privilege be reserved for those who are not “prodigal sons”? They thumb their noses at the Church, and then get this privilege? Something is not right here. The Holy See needs to set an example. If they don’t want the faithful to go to their churches, why are they allowed to say the sacred Mass in ours? It’s unfathomable to me.

 

[commenter]

A Traditional Catholic’s Motto:
We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.*

Actually, Catholics in the 1950s were concerned with their own conversion, with evangelizing others to the Catholic Faith, and bringing Christian principles to society, all in union with their current local bishop and pope

 

[commenter]

A Traditional Catholic’s Motto:
We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.*

End QUOTE from prior poster]

Actually, Catholics in the 1950s were concerned with their own conversion, with evangelizing others to the Catholic Faith, and bringing Christian principles to society, all in union with their current local bishop and pope. They weren’t preoccupied with their rights and privileges in the Church. Their focus was on God.

The SSPX is not like the 1950s Catholics. They are heavily focused on maintaining their own institutional identity. They are not united with the Catholics in their community, or their nation, to bring non-Christians into the Catholic Faith, or defend religious liberty and prolife in a common struggle.

They are not at all “1950s” they are very much 2014, much better dressed than Call to Action, but like that group very much a product of modern times. In my city the local SSPX chapel doesn’t try to attract atheists, or Protestants, former Catholics, or youth, or even liberal Catholics, to bring them into the Catholic Faith. The only group they draw people away from is the diocesan TLM. The SSPX may seem opposite to Call to Action, but the reality is that neither group could have flourished in 1960, and both are influenced by the whole “rights and demands” mentality of today.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

“Schismatic”. That’s my terminology. I understand some of them have been excommunicated. They are not in communion with Rome. They have appointed their own bishops. We are not supposed to go to their churches. It seems there is a ‘schism’ going on here, no matter what other may call it. That said, don’t you think it looks bad, or odd, or strange that it’s apparently OK if they have a mass in St. Peter’s? I mean really, shouldn’t that privilege be reserved for those who are not “prodigal sons”? They thumb their noses at the Church, and then get this privilege? Something is not right here. The Holy See needs to set an example. If they don’t want the faithful to go to their churches, why are they allowed to say the sacred Mass in ours? It’s unfathomable to me.

I use the definition of the Church. They are not excommunicated.

I would urge you to become educated about the subject before you condemn others.

I wonder why you are so vitriolic about it?

 

[ProVobis]

I understand some of them have been excommunicated.

Is this documented somewhere? Because last I heard Pope Benedict lifted the excommunications. They are Catholics.

However, I think it’s fair to say the priests are suspended for the time being, the Pope being the only one who can lift the suspensions. They have no faculties to hear confessions or to perform marriages, but that should be obvious because the local bishop is the one who grants such faculties to his priests. But even here there is some debate, as those marriages performed by FSSPX priests need to be annulled for the purposes of remarriage, etc.

 

[commenter]

I use the definition of the Church. They are not excommunicated.

I would urge you to become educated about the subject before you condemn others.

I wonder why you are so vitriolic about it?

All organizations, good and bad, are sometimes unfairly criticized. Some bad organizations are attacked, sometimes in a vitriolic way. Being unfairly attacked does not make a bad organization good. I consider the overall impact of an organization. In my city there is a TLM sponsored by the Diocese. The people are active and united to the local struggle for prolife and religious liberty. There is also an SSPX chapel. The people there may personally favor prolife, but are not united in any way to the larger diocesan struggle for these causes. Our local bishop frequently speaks out on religious liberty, and the need for Catholics to take action in the “Public Square”. The SSPX critiques, or evaluates the bishop, but the diocesan TLM supports him.

If the SSPX grew, they would likely draw some people away from active participation in the common prolife and religious liberty activity, and spread the idea of caution, rather than unity with the bishop. Overall the bishop would have less impact on the metropolitan area, or the “Public Square”.

If the SSPX folded, many individuals now isolated from the prolife and religious liberty movement would join those causes on the diocesan level, as they become part of the diocesan TLM.

Does the SSPX have a positive, or negative impact? You be the judge.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

All organizations, good and bad, are sometimes unfairly criticized. Some bad organizations are attacked, sometimes in a vitriolic way. Being unfairly attacked does not make a bad organization good. I consider the overall impact of an organization. In my city there is a TLM sponsored by the Diocese. The people are active and united to the local struggle for prolife and religious liberty. There is also an SSPX chapel. The people there may personally favor prolife, but are not united in any way to the larger diocesan struggle for these causes. Our local bishop frequently speaks out on religious liberty, and the need for Catholics to take action in the “Public Square”. The SSPX critiques, or evaluates the bishop, but the diocesan TLM supports him.

If the SSPX grew, they would likely draw some people away from active participation in the common prolife and religious liberty activity, and spread the idea of caution, rather than unity with the bishop. Overall the bishop would have less impact on the metropolitan area, or the “Public Square”.

If the SSPX folded, many individuals now isolated from the prolife and religious liberty movement would join those causes on the diocesan level, as they become part of the diocesan TLM.

Does the SSPX have a positive, or negative impact? You be the judge.

That is interesting. We are colored by our own diocese are’t we. In my old diocese the TLM was squashed. Even with the MP. The bishop flat out said no. The only TLM offered was an SSPX one. Still to this day this is the case. In my current diocese there is no real friendliness to the TLM but there is no active cause for it either. I live in a college town of about 80,000. The nearest TLM is an hour away and right next to another diocese that has several. There is also a couple of SSPX churches within about 2 hours of me. I would definately choose the Diocesan TLM, with a couple of reservations. 1) It is sad to me that the parents of a FSSP priest pay for the young man to drive from a different diocese to this one every Sunday to have this opportunity for us. There is interest of other priests to be trained for the TLM.
2) Sometimes it is canceled and there are some of us who then have to scramble to find a Mass somewhere else at the last minute.

But to your pro life point. I just don’t see it. The fact is that the pro life movement should be prevalent in any parish. TLM, SSPX, OF or otherwise. The fact that you see the SSPX as holding valuable pro life people out of regular Catholic life is a sad testament to the rest of us.

 

[ProVobis]

I would definately choose the Diocesan TLM, with a couple of reservations. 1) It is sad to me that the parents of a FSSP priest pay for the young man to drive from a different diocese to this one every Sunday to have this opportunity for us. There is interest of other priests to be trained for the TLM.
2) Sometimes it is canceled and there are some of us who then have to scramble to find a Mass somewhere else at the last minute.

Indeed. I have to admit on any given Sunday, I fear that the diocesan EF I attend will be discontinued or moved. There seems to be no assurance to the contrary, although I’m sure many of those who attend their normal English Mass aren’t very secure these days either. Last night, for example, the priest mentioned at least three times in his sermon, “for the few of us who are still here…” or something to that effect. It doesn’t take a genius to see the writing on the wall.

 

[commenter]

But to your pro life point. I just don’t see it. The fact is that the pro life movement should be prevalent in any parish. TLM, SSPX, OF or otherwise. The fact that you see the SSPX as holding valuable pro life people out of regular Catholic life is a sad testament to the rest of us.

Yes, the prolife movement should be prevalent in any parish. Some kinds of action can be taken on a personal, or parish level. But it also needs to be prevalent on a regional and national level. I don’t see that happening when the SSPX (and PNCC, and other groups) unintentionally hold valuable pro life people out of Catholic united regional and national action.

I’m sure the SSPX leaders favor religious liberty. I am just saying their websites have an awful lot about defending laity from encroachment of liberties by the Vatican or diocese, but almost nothing about defending laity from encroachment by the Federal or state government.

Keep in mind Pius XII, or for that matter St. Pius X, frequently spoke about the need for a UNITED Catholic response on a regional, national, and international level, to the secular humanism of their day. What would they say about the various sub groups each doing their own thing today, indifferent to the real common enemy?

 

[boomerang]

I use the definition of the Church. They are not excommunicated. I would urge you to become educated about the subject before you condemn others. I wonder why you are so vitriolic about it?

I’m not “vitriolic”. They are not in communion with Rome. They shouldn’t be holding Mass at St. Peter’s. And I’m also using the definition of the Church:

---

*APOSTOLIC LETTER “ECCLESIA DEI” OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO

 "With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre....

 "....In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church.... Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.  In performing such an act... Mons. Lefebvre and the (four) priests... have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.

 "... The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition....

 ".... Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law."

Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s. 2 July 1988, the tenth year of the pontificate.

Joannes Paulus PP. II*

---

This is from the SSPX website:

*July 1, 1988
“Cardinal Gantin (Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops) declared the threatened excommunication (according to canon 1382) to have been incurred. He also called the consecrations a schismatic act and declared the corresponding excommunication (canon 1364 §1), as well as threatening anyone supporting the consecrations with excommunication because of “schism”."

July 2, 1988

“In Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, the pope repeated Cardinal Gantin’s accusation of schismatic mentality and threatened generalized excommunications.”*

---

Has the SSPX returned to the fold? NO? Why are they holding a Mass at St. Peter’s? It’s not vitriolic to want to know why this is allowed.

 

[rfournier103]

Are the SSPX in FULL communion with Rome? No.

Are efforts being made to remedy that? Yes.

This is what I have taken away from this story and discussion here…

Someone in Rome, perhaps even His Holiness himself, is negotiating to bring the SSPX to heel. This is far above our pay grades; but I APPLAUD the Holy See’s efforts and patience. And the Holy See HAS been patient. We are five popes into this saga (counting the 33 days of Pope John Paul I) and this should be settled.

If the Protestant Reformation were handled a little differently, what would our world look like today? The Vatican is trying desperately to keep them from breaking off ALL ties, and sucking even MORE Catholics away from licit masses and sacraments.

The SSPX WILL have to compromise on some key issues. There’s no getting around that. The question is; will they?

Actually, Catholics in the 1950s were concerned with their own conversion, with evangelizing others to the Catholic Faith, and bringing Christian principles to society, all in union with their current local bishop and pope. They weren’t preoccupied with their rights and privileges in the Church. Their focus was on God.

The SSPX is not like the 1950s Catholics. They are heavily focused on maintaining their own institutional identity. They are not united with the Catholics in their community, or their nation, to bring non-Christians into the Catholic Faith, or defend religious liberty and prolife in a common struggle.

They are not at all “1950s” they are very much 2014, much better dressed than Call to Action, but like that group very much a product of modern times. In my city the local SSPX chapel doesn’t try to attract atheists, or Protestants, former Catholics, or youth, or even liberal Catholics, to bring them into the Catholic Faith. The only group they draw people away from is the diocesan TLM. The SSPX may seem opposite to Call to Action, but the reality is that neither group could have flourished in 1960, and both are influenced by the whole “rights and demands” mentality of today.

A very thought provoking statement, Commenter.

We don’t know exactly WHAT the SSPX would do/will do if given regular status. What we DO know is that the SSPX’s main mission since 1970 has been the preservation and promotion of the Latin Mass. Not an easy task when so many are against you. If they were allowed to expand as they want to, THEN they would have more manpower to do MORE of God’s work…

As far as maintaining their own institutional identity is concerned; what order/fraternity DOESN’T want to do that? I can see that a local bishop will want some control over SSPX priests operating within his diocese, and that is very likely an issue being discussed in Rome as we speak.

I attend a regular diocesan parish, where ONLY the Novus Ordo is offered. Despite Pope Benedict’s motu proprio in 2007; requests for the Latin Mass at my parish have met with a chilly (and that’s being nice) reception. IF… the SSPX were to be given regular status within the Church, I would jump there in a second.

My wife and I are fairly young, active in our parish, and I would love to help with evangelizing, religious education, and other things that make a good parish come alive.

I truly believe the Novus Ordo to be a valid mass. However… knowing what I know about the theological contrasts between the two, the origin of the Novus Ordo, and just my own personal preferences; I would prefer to attend and be a part of a parish that offers the Tridentine Mass.

For those that have read thus far; I humbly ask that we continue to keep this discussion civil, so that we may keep this discussion going. It is VERY RARE that a decent conversation about the SSPX can take place; and I want to keep it going. I find this more stimulating than debating “Sola Scriptura” for the eight millionth time…

 

[agnes_therese]

They shouldn’t be holding Mass at St. Peter’s . . .
Has the SSPX returned to the fold? NO? Why are they holding a Mass at St. Peter’s? It’s not vitriolic to want to know why this is allowed.

Apparently it’s not your decision to make. Let us know how far you get when you tell the Vatican it should have been.

And it IS vitriolic to keep using the term schismatic when they have not been formally declared as such.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I’m not “vitriolic”. They are not in communion with Rome. They shouldn’t be holding Mass at St. Peter’s. And I’m also using the definition of the Church:

---

*APOSTOLIC LETTER “ECCLESIA DEI” OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO

 "With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre....

 "....In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church.... Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic* act.  In performing such an act... Mons. Lefebvre and the (four) priests... have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.

 "... The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition....

 ".... Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law."

Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s. 2 July 1988, the tenth year of the pontificate.

Joannes Paulus PP. II

---

This is from the SSPX website:

July 1, 1988
"Cardinal Gantin (Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops) declared the threatened excommunication (according to canon 1382) to have been incurred. He also called the consecrations a schismatic act and declared the corresponding excommunication (canon 1364 §1), as well as threatening anyone supporting the consecrations with excommunication because of “schism"."

July 2, 1988

“In Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, the pope repeated Cardinal Gantin’s accusation of schismatic mentality and threatened generalized excommunications.”

---

Has the SSPX returned to the fold? NO? Why are they holding a Mass at St. Peter’s? It’s not vitriolic to want to know why this is allowed.

Either you are being purposely obtuse or you are not versed in the ongoing situation with the SSPX. Either way I don’t see the value of your position from a pastoral standpoint. And ironically you are at odds with what those who ARE in full communion have decided in regards to them saying Mass at the Basilica. I urge you to be more charitable and less critical of the Vatican and Rome. Or you risk sounding like those you are railing against.

 

[commenter]

Are the SSPX in FULL communion with Rome? No.
.

Are they in partial communion at present? I mean the organization, as opposed to individual clergy. I don’t know the answer to that.

A very thought provoking statement, Commenter.

Thank you! You made my day. Flatter me and I’ll accept 90% of everything you say.

My wife and I are fairly young, active in our parish, and I would love to help with evangelizing, religious education, and other things that make a good parish come alive.

I wish we could clone you 2 and bring you here.

For those that have read thus far; I humbly ask that we continue to keep this discussion civil, so that we may keep this discussion going. It is VERY RARE that a decent conversation about the SSPX can take place; and I want to keep it going. I find this more stimulating than debating “Sola Scriptura” for the eight millionth time…

Amen to that.

 

[ProVobis]

In performing such an act… Mons. Lefebvre and the (four) priests… have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.

These excommunications were lifted by Pope Benedict in 2009.

Many didn’t applaud the lifting but nevertheless the ruling stands.

 

[rfournier103]

Thank you for the kind words, commenter. They are appreciated.

 

[rfournier103]

These excommunications were lifted by Pope Benedict in 2009.

Many didn’t applaud the lifting but nevertheless the ruling stands.

Perhaps the first real olive branch extended in this whole saga. And yes, the ruling certainly DOES stand.

 

[boomerang]

Either you are being purposely obtuse or you are not versed in the ongoing situation with the SSPX. Either way I don’t see the value of your position from a pastoral standpoint. And ironically you are at odds with what those who ARE in full communion have decided in regards to them saying Mass at the Basilica. I urge you to be more charitable and less critical of the Vatican and Rome. Or you risk sounding like those you are railing against.

There’s no need to make this a personal attack. And you say* I’m* not being charitable? I’m stating facts. Don’t get your knickers in a knot.

         ***************************************************************

HEAD OF CDF ARCHBISHOP MULLER:
***"The leaders of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) are in schism, and remain suspended from the sacraments, says the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

In an interview with the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, Archbishop Gerhard Müller said that although Pope Benedict XVI lifted the canonical excommunication of SSPX prelates, they remain suspended from the sacraments because “by their schism they have broken away from communion with the Church.”

Archbishop Müller said that while talks with the SSPX have reach an impasse, the Vatican will not close the door to reconciliation. However, he said, a restoration of full communion would require the SSPX to accept the authority of the Church and of the Pope."***

               **********************************************************

THE WORDS OF BISHOP FELLAY:
** “The situation of the Church is a real disaster, and the present Pope is making it 10,000 times worse.”

“To imagine that some people continue to pretend we are (still) decided to get an agreement with Rome. Poor people. I really challenge them to prove they mean. They pretend that I think something else from what I do. They are not in my head.”

"So when Pope Benedict requested that we accept that the Second Vatican Council is an integral part of Tradition, we say, ‘sorry, that’s not the reality, so we’re not going to sign it. We’re not going to recognize that’.”

"…so we tell them (the parishioners of SSPX), ‘The New Mass is bad, it is evil’ and they understand that. Period!’” Of course the Roman authorities “were not very happy with that.”

““If the present Pope (Francis) continues in the way he started, he is going to divide the Church. He’s exploding everything. So people will say: it is impossible that’s he’s the Pope, we refuse him. Others will say [and this is presently Bishop Fellay’s position]: “Wait, consider him as Pope, but don’t follow him.”

“But… God is able to have the Church continue and even can work through these imperfect ministers. “But once again”, he repeats, “don’t follow them. Follow them when they say the truth, but when they tell you rubbish, you don’t follow them on those points.”

Bishop Fellay noted that we cannot simply obey the present Popes without question…

“From the start,” he said, “we have the impression that we have something wrong with this Pope (Francis)"…

Fellay on Pope Francis’ statements and teachings: “What Gospel does he have? Which Bible does he have to say such things? It’s horrible. What has this to do with the Gospel? With the Catholic Faith? That’s pure Modernism, my dear brethren. We have in front of us a genuine Modernist. How much time will be needed for people in the Church to stand up ‘by no means!’ (will we accept this new teaching). I hope and pray this will happen. But that means an enormous division in the Church.”**

   ****************************************************************

Again, I think most reasonable people would have to wonder at the wisdom of allowing this society to hold Mass at St. Peter’s Cathedral. They aren’t in communion. They are schismatics according to both JP2 and CDF head Cardinal Muller. And it sounds like their
Superior General thinks it’s perfectly OK to be disobedient to the Pope. And insulting, to boot. This is how Protestantism got started. Remember? Why not invite the Lutherans to St. Peter’s for a mass? May as well.