SSPX Reconciliation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marilena
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ave Maria!:
I hope for reconciliation. And I hope for the UNIVERSAL indult of the Latin Mass that can be offered everywhere by any priest with the love and desire to do so. And I also hope for something along the lines of an ‘apostolic administration’ or the creation of a true ‘Latin Rite’. The Novus Ordo would continue to be ‘Roman Rite’ but there should be room for the ‘Latin Rite’ just like there is room for the Byzantine and Coptic and Melkite, etc.

My bishop will not allow an indult. When the universal permission is granted and if and when the TLM becomes available, I will attend that Holy Sacrifice. I am tired of the communal meal where we laugh and clap and sing about ourselves. I long for the Mass of the Ages.

Ave Maria!
The most common theory that I have heard regarding “how” the SSPX would be administered canonically is the establishment of a personal prelature (the same type of structure as Opus Dei). That way, the SSPX would retain their existing hierarchy. I think it’s an interesting proposition.

My biggest question is how they would interact with the diocesan Bishops. I believe that Opus Dei priests have to receive permission from the local ordinary in order to say mass, etc. Does anyone know if the SSPX would have to do the same? It would seem they would if they were under the same type of canonical structure. Has anyone found any good info on this?
 
Let me ask this question then yet again, if all SSPX priest are suspended, how then logically can one attend their Mass even
out of dire necessity? That does not make sense! If a priest is
suspended, how can one attend their Mass out of dire necessity?
Marilena,

Suspended means cannot licitly (lawfully under the code of canon law) administer the sacraments unless grave necessity (i.e. in danger of death). The mark of holy orders remains which means the SSPX priest actually confects the Eucharist and validly says Mass. That Mass however is not licit (lawful) because the priest has been ordered NOT to do so by the legitimate authority, the vatican.
Please show valid credible proof that ALL SSPX priest are suspended. ALL of them, not just one, ALL.
Here is where I answered this question from you before in post# 117:
"A priest who is suspended a divinis is a priest whose faculties are suspended. He is not to say Mass, hear confessions, etc. unless out of grave necessity.
Here is proof in a quotation from the Vatican as it relates to SSPX:
“b. While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis, that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265). In the strict sense there are no “lay members” of the Society of St. Pius X, only those who frequent their Masses and receive the sacraments from them.”
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX2.HTM
Hope this helps to clarify."
It makes no logical sense to me that one can attend their Mass if they are all suspended. Either you can attend one or not with a suspended priest. If it is a grave sin to attend their Mass then it is also a grave sin even under dire circumstances is it not?
The only time that such attendance would be permissible is IF there was no other Mass available. To simply attend such a Mass out of preference is serious matter. The mass said by a SSPX priest is valid but not lawful. Under these exceptional circumstances the Church would rather we attend a valid but illicit mass than attend no mass at all.
I want to see legitimate proof that ALL SSPX priests are suspended. Please, prove it to me.
Again, please see above.
 
I am looking for where I read a statement from the Vatican saying that those who are attached to the Latin Mass may attend an SSPX chapel without being deemed ‘in schism’ if their intent is for the Mass and not to support schism.

But HOLD ON because things are in flux at this very moment and a new document may be coming on April 7th. I look for a ‘normalization’ of some sort and an understanding with Rome and the SSPX to be forthcoming.

I am not SSPX myself, by the way. The nearest chapel is about 275 miles from me. But there have been times when our local Novus Ordos have been so painful that I might have considered the SSPX had it been available. I long for a reverent Mass and while the Novus Ordo, when offered properly, certainly can be reverent, we are often treated to entertainment and jokes and other liturgical abuses that must be endured. Of course, few in the pews any longer know the difference.

Ave Maria!
 
Ave Maria!:
I am looking for where I read a statement from the Vatican saying that those who are attached to the Latin Mass may attend an SSPX chapel without being deemed ‘in schism’ if their intent is for the Mass and not to support schism.

But HOLD ON because things are in flux at this very moment and a new document may be coming on April 7th. I look for a ‘normalization’ of some sort and an understanding with Rome and the SSPX to be forthcoming.

I am not SSPX myself, by the way. The nearest chapel is about 275 miles from me. But there have been times when our local Novus Ordos have been so painful that I might have considered the SSPX had it been available. I long for a reverent Mass and while the Novus Ordo, when offered properly, certainly can be reverent, we are often treated to entertainment and jokes and other liturgical abuses that must be endured. Of course, few in the pews any longer know the difference.

Ave Maria!
You would not have seen such a statement from the Vatican. The Vatican has been very clear all along that the only time one can legitimately attend a SSPX mass is if there is no other mass available. Even though the Novus Ordo that you mention is sadly abused, it still counts as a Mass. Perhaps you heard or read this from a SSPX favorable source.

The Vatican documents quoted throughout this thread explain the status of the SSPX very clearly. This position has been maintained since Ecclesia Dei.

I also hope for reconciliation, but I am doubtful as to if it could occur. I cannot see the SSPX suddenly being willing to submit to the jurisdiction of bishop’s around the world, but hopefully I am wrong.
 
gelsbern wrote:

Sadly mis-informed and off target:
Archbishop LeFebvre was basically condemned to hell if the excommunication really did happen.
Excommunication is NOT a condemnation to Hell by the Church of the person involved. Like all penalties and censures, it is medicinal, in the hope that the party concerned will gravely re-consider their situation and reconcile.

Likewise, God does not condemn any soul to Hell. Any soul who dies and “deserves” Hell realizes that he does NOT deserve the presence of God and, having rejected God in life has freely chosen Hell. The soul has condemned himself to Hell by free choice.
 
Sean O L:
gelsbern wrote:

Sadly mis-informed and off target:

Excommunication is NOT a condemnation to Hell by the Church of the person involved. Like all penalties and censures, it is medicinal, in the hope that the party concerned will gravely re-consider their situation and reconcile.

Likewise, God does not condemn any soul to Hell. Any soul who dies and “deserves” Hell realizes that he does NOT deserve the presence of God and, having rejected God in life has freely chosen Hell. The soul has condemned himself to Hell by free choice.
He’s dead, he can hardly reconsider. He died while still being “excommunicated” so if the excommunication was truly valid then what does that mean for his soul?
 
Ham1 wrote:
Here is proof in a quotation from the Vatican as it relates to SSPX:

“b. While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis, that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265). In the strict sense there are no “lay members” of the Society of St. Pius X, only those who frequent their Masses and receive the sacraments from them.”
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX2.HTM
That response at EWTN is Mgr. Camille Perl’s reply to me.

It and other pertinent Vatican documentation may be viewed at
jloughnan.tripod.com/schmex1.htm

jloughnan.tripod.com/schmex2.htm

jloughnan.tripod.com/schmex3.htm

The response is in the last link, the second document.
For those who are interested in whether the SSPX priests are suspended from functioning as priests - I suggest that they do a search through the documents using their “Search” facility, and using the word “suspended” (without the quote marks.)
 
It’s odd, I bend over backwards to try to find sites that are definitively in union with Rome to post links to for information. I was told early on that tripod sites and wikipedia sites don’t count.

I take it that this only applies to those of us who are outside of union with Rome?
 
having looked for many years, i have yet to see a canon that
justified the use of the “vulgar” in the “holy sacrifice of the mass”
it of course must predate 1969 in order to have validity within this
context. anything after that date is “ex post facto” and cannot be
used. thanks. have a good year. alih.
 
What are you getting all huffy with me for? I’m not even quoting the Council of Trent–whatever that is. What does “anathema” mean?

**Yeesh, being in support of the traditional ways of doing things certainly has an odd way of getting me yelled at. I entirely don’t understand all the ridiculous anger. My post was a very happy and excited one, and now I feel you’ve dumped a bucket of cold water on me. :crying: **

*Besides, another important reason–though the reverence and traditional altars and other nonProtestant features are the most important reasons–why I want the traditional changes, is because I would rather read the Mass * than sit there and feel like I’m left out. So many Vatican II people act like “Its in English, so you can stop bringing that Missal in here with you” and “You shouldn’t be reading during the Mass”, and other incredibly insensitive things to say! There’s another wonderful incentive for the Post-Vatican II Missals. They now have them in Giant Type/Print!

Someone gave me a link to look at. It would appear SSPX weren’t one of the good groups. I must be thinking of someone else. I know Una Voce is one of the good groups. I’m kinda guessing that the Post-Vatican II Mass doesn’t restore the traditional altar. I’m not sure, though. It just seems that so far, I haven’t seen it restored yet. I have yet to peek at a New Roman Daily Missal to see the difference the Post-Vatican II’s Rite makes.

Anyway…I guess this is my last candid post. I’ll be more quiet from here on in. I can’t stand too many buckets of cold water.

God bless,

seremina
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
The Novus Ordo was disgusting to them and they felt it offended Christ?!?! And YOU feel the same way? You “traditionalists” are always going on about Trent. The Council of Trent
said this:“If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety:** let him be anathema.”** (Session XXII, canon 7, Denz. 954.).

Further, the SSPX are in schism. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have to be reconciled, would they?

**
 
I think I NOW get what you’re trying to say. Why accuse me of…I’m taking a long shot here. I’m guessing “disparaging” means discouraging or something to that effect. I’m not doing that at all. I’m not even insulting the Novus Ordo. I was quoting what others have said and I feel that the Novus Ordo seems too…Protestantised. It doesn’t look as respectful as a Tridentine Mass does. I’m hoping that with the reconciliation or something [not entirely sure what the full meaning behind reconciliation is], the Church will again be ONE and RESPECTFUL.

I am a her. Instead of being an angry defender, why didn’t you just kindly ask me why I felt the way I did about the Novus Ordo? Perhaps you can kindly tell me why I feel the Novus Ordo seems so Protestantised and help me feel differently?

I know I posted a bit earlier, but after further reading of the thread, I realised you indirectly addressed me again, especially with a rather cruel accusation.

The other good group I meant, I think is the FSSP. Is that right?

May God help me forgive people for being so easily angered at my candid views, and God bless.

seremina


40.png
JKirkLVNV:
Point taken. In justice, I was defending the Mass, not disparaging it. If you look back, Seremina was the one that said the Pauline Rite was “disgusting” and “offensive.”

I seem to remember that you gave him or her one of these in the post that immediately followed:thumbsup: Perhaps you’d like to clarify?
 
40.png
seremina:
I think I NOW get what you’re trying to say. Why accuse me of…I’m taking a long shot here. I’m guessing “disparaging” means discouraging or something to that effect. I’m not doing that at all. I’m not even insulting the Novus Ordo. I was quoting what others have said and I feel that the Novus Ordo seems too…Protestantised. It doesn’t look as respectful as a Tridentine Mass does. I’m hoping that with the reconciliation or something [not entirely sure what the full meaning behind reconciliation is], the Church will again be ONE and RESPECTFUL.

I am a her. Instead of being an angry defender, why didn’t you just kindly ask me why I felt the way I did about the Novus Ordo? Perhaps you can kindly tell me why I feel the Novus Ordo seems so Protestantised and help me feel differently?

I know I posted a bit earlier, but after further reading of the thread, I realised you indirectly addressed me again, especially with a rather cruel accusation.

The other good group I meant, I think is the FSSP. Is that right?

May God help me forgive people for being so easily angered at my candid views, and God bless.

seremina
This is what you wrote in the first paragraph of your original post (emphasis mine):

I am either a Una Voce or SSPX [both legitimate Traditionalist Roman Catholic groups as far as I know] person and I do support their reconciliation. They felt obligated to be apart from the Pope because the Novus Ordo was so disgusting to them and they felt it offended Christ. I feel the same way.
I think I just pretty much read what you wrote as you wrote it. How else would you interpret “They felt obligated to be apart from the Pope because the Novus Ordo was so disgusting to them and they felt it offended Christ. I feel the same way?” Esp. the part where you feel the same way? You seem to have basically said that the Mass promulgated by the legitimate authority (the Holy Father Pope Paul VI) and celebrated by him and his successors (the Holy Fathers Pope John Paul I, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI) was “disgusting” and “offensive” to Christ. How else was I to have interpreted it? You didn’t say,“I don’t care for the Pauline Rite” or “I prefer the Pian Rite.” You said you agreed with those who said the Pauline Rite was disgusting and offensive to Christ. Didn’t you? It is a heresy to propose that any discipline of the Church regarding her sacraments leads the faithful to impiety. I didn’t pronounce the anathema, Trent did. Take it up with the legitimate authority. I’m done arguing about the Mass.

 
alih wrote:
having looked for many years, i have yet to see a canon that
justified the use of the “vulgar” in the “holy sacrifice of the mass”
it of course must predate 1969 in order to have validity within this
context. anything after that date is “ex post facto” and cannot be
used. thanks. have a good year. alih.
Session XXII, September 17, 1562, Chapter IX, On the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon IX says:

“If anyone saith that … the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only … anathema.”

If anyone things that this means that the Council of Trent forbad the saying of the Mass in the vulgar tongue only - then they do not understand either what the Canon was about - nor the English (and, probably, the Latin) language.

AT THAT TIME there were people who claimed that the Mass ought to be celebrated only in the vernacular - and not in the Latin. It was to counter THAT concept that the Council formed that Canon.

But, it WAS possible for a Mass to BE said (at least theoretically) in the vernacular PROVIDED that those who did so did NOT claim that Mass could not also (or mainly) be said in Latin.
 
Ave Maria!:
I am looking for where I read a statement from the Vatican saying that those who are attached to the Latin Mass may attend an SSPX chapel without being deemed ‘in schism’ if their intent is for the Mass and not to support schism.

But HOLD ON because things are in flux at this very moment and a new document may be coming on April 7th. I look for a ‘normalization’ of some sort and an understanding with Rome and the SSPX to be forthcoming.

I am not SSPX myself, by the way. The nearest chapel is about 275 miles from me. But there have been times when our local Novus Ordos have been so painful that I might have considered the SSPX had it been available. I long for a reverent Mass and while the Novus Ordo, when offered properly, certainly can be reverent, we are often treated to entertainment and jokes and other liturgical abuses that must be endured. Of course, few in the pews any longer know the difference.

Ave Maria!
Ave Maria,

Read through these links, I believe they will provide you with the requested information.

Ecclesia Dei: SSPX priests and faithful are not “excommunicates”
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2006/03/ecclesia-dei-sspx-priests-and-faithful.html

Pontificia Commissio “Ecclesia Dei” January 18, 2003
Msgr. Camille Perl’s response to the question of whether it is a sin to attend Mass with the SSPX:
“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.” **
unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm
 
NeelyAnn’s quote demonstrates that SSPXers provide only those quotes and extracts which suit their agenda.

Here is what Mgr Perl wrote:
"ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission’s Msgr Camille Perl
Second Reply to unknown person #1, Sept. 27, 2002
From 15th December 2002 REMNANT Dear Mr. … We wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 14 August 2002 addressed to His Eminence Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos along with the enclosures. In our letter to you of 7 November 2001 we provided you with important information about the status of the Society of St. Pius X according to the law of the Church and told you that we cannot recommend your frequenting their chapels, but you indicate that you are not satisfied with our responses and have raised three more specific questions. We will deal with them in logical order. 1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X. 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 attendance at such a Mass were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin. 3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at mass could be justified… Sincerely yours in Christ, Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl Secretary
Even this was twisted by the “traditionalists” - so much so that it required a clarification - see the last entry at jloughnan.tripod.com/schmex3.htm
"ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission’s Msgr Camille Perl
Letter to Una Voce America


Letter by Msgr. Perl regarding SSPX Masses

Furthermore, NeelyAnn’s dismisses the fact that Mgr Perl, even in the above text makes it clear that what he is talking about is “in the strict sense” - that is, in circumstances where one is unable to attend one’s local Catholic Church under the jurisdiction of the local bishop because, for example, the church building had been destroyed, or the priest had died, etc. One has an OBLIGATION to attend Mass in a Church which is in union with Rome. One has NO obligation to attend Mass in a schismatic church - but, In THAT “strict sense”, if one DID attend the schismatic Mass and there was no adhesion to the schism of the SSPX - then, one could be justified, and as a matter of common courtesy, one could pay one’s way.
 
Sean OL,

Below is the entire letter of Msgr. Perl. The explanation of “in the strict” sense is yours, not his. In additon, he did not say the following, “Even this was twisted by the “traditionalists” - so much so that it required a clarification,” as you seem to have attributed to him.

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.” **

Further, the correspondent took the Commission to task for not doing its job properly and we responded thus:

"This Pontifical Commission does not have the authority to coerce Bishops to provide for the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. Nonetheless, we are frequently in contact with Bishops and do all that we can to see that this provision is made. However, this provision also depends on the number of people who desire the ‘traditional’ Mass, their motives and the availability of priests who can celebrate it.

“You also state in your letter that the Holy Father has given you a ‘right’ to the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. This is not correct. It is true that he has asked his brother Bishops to be generous in providing for the celebration of this Mass, but he has not stated that it is a ‘right’. Presently it constitutes an exception to the Church’s law and may be granted when the local Bishop judges it to be a valid pastoral service and when he has the priests who are available to celebrate it. Every Catholic has a right to the sacraments (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 843), but he does not have a right to them according to the rite of his choice.”

We hope that this puts in a clearer light the letter about which you asked us.

With prayerful best wishes for this New Year of Our Lord 2003, I remain

Sincerely yours in Christ,
Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl Secretary
 
More recently from Msgr Perl:

PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO
‘ECCLESIA DEI’

n. 55/2005 Rome, September 5, 2005

Sir,

Your letter of July 11 arrived at this Pontifical Commission (…), but it has not been answered up to now due to the annual vacations during the month of August.



Because your letter actually involves the competence of our Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’, we have precised in our letter what follows:

‘On the argument presented (that you regularly attend Sunday Mass at a chapel of the Fraternity Saint Pius X) one cannot say but this: the faithful who attend the Masses of the aforesaid Fraternity are not excommunicates, and the priests who celebrate them are not, either – the latter are, in fact, suspended. Which is why it would be difficult to explain this exclusion by this sole motive, at a time in which the reintegration of this Fraternity to the full communion of the Church is sought.’

The Council for Culture, whose president is Cardinal Poupard, will certainly let you know of his decision.

Receive, sir, my religious regards, [Veuillez croire, Monsieur, à mon dévouement religieux,]

CAMILLE PERL
Secretary

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2006/03/ecclesia-dei-sspx-priests-and-faithful.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top