SSPX

  • Thread starter Thread starter russell007
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

russell007

Guest
Would attending an SSPX mass be grounds for automatic excommunication?

I still am not sure of what this exactly means.

I did find this quote “If your PRIMARY reason for attending (an SSPX mass) 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 to simply participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.”

Monsignor (Now Archbishop) Camille Perl Secretary of the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission

This is the break down of his letter.

Letter by Msgr. Camille Perl Regarding Society of St. Pius X Masses

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
 
Would attending an SSPX mass be grounds for automatic excommunication?

I did find this quote “If your PRIMARY reason for attending (an SSPX mass) 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 to simply participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.”

Monsignor (Now Archbishop) Camille Perl Secretary of the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission

Grounds for excommunication — No.
 
Would attending an SSPX mass be grounds for automatic excommunication?

I still am not sure of what this exactly means.

I did find this quote “If your PRIMARY reason for attending (an SSPX mass) 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 to simply participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.”

Monsignor (Now Archbishop) Camille Perl Secretary of the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission

This is the break down of his letter.

Letter by Msgr. Camille Perl Regarding Society of St. Pius X Masses

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
You will be excommunicated only if you do what is in bold above. His words imply that you must want to separate from the Holy See and unite yourself to the movement of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, RIP.

But as he says in the letter, I would not take my chances. If you get so involved with the SSPX that you find yourself in conflict with the Holy See, not directly, but in your heart and mind, that will be very uncomfortable for you.

Fraternally,

JR 🙂
 
You are not allowed to receive communion their if you were to go.
 
"You are not allowed to receive communion their if you were to go."

Actually, this is not strictly true. You can receive communion and it is valid so long as the Mass is valid (i.e. the words of consecration are the same as those used in the regular Roman Catholic rite – “This is my body…” and “This is my blood…”). SSPX Masses are not licit but they are valid. What I mean by this is that because of the schismatic nature of the SSPX, they are not in communion with Rome; therefore the Masses they celebrate are not licit (in other words they don’t conform to Church law in every respect) but because they are celebrated by a priest who has been ordained licitly (and the consecration is not altered), so the Eucharist received at an SSPX mass is valid in the sense that it has the same efficacy as a sacrament and imparts the same graces.

Is that as clear as mud?

NFPgirl
 
"You are not allowed to receive communion their if you were to go."

Actually, this is not strictly true. You can receive communion and it is valid so long as the Mass is valid (i.e. the words of consecration are the same as those used in the regular Roman Catholic rite – “This is my body…” and “This is my blood…”). SSPX Masses are not licit but they are valid. What I mean by this is that because of the schismatic nature of the SSPX, they are not in communion with Rome; therefore the Masses they celebrate are not licit (in other words they don’t conform to Church law in every respect) but because they are celebrated by a priest who has been ordained licitly (and the consecration is not altered), so the Eucharist received at an SSPX mass is valid in the sense that it has the same efficacy as a sacrament and imparts the same graces.

Is that as clear as mud?

NFPgirl
What I meant to say was you are not supposed to. :o
 

I do not believe what you said is correct.
I’m not saying that you’re wrong. I don’t understand why not?

JR 🙂
"You are not allowed to receive communion their if you were to go."

Actually, this is not strictly true. You can receive communion and it is valid so long as the Mass is valid (i.e. the words of consecration are the same as those used in the regular Roman Catholic rite – “This is my body…” and “This is my blood…”). SSPX Masses are not licit but they are valid. What I mean by this is that because of the schismatic nature of the SSPX, they are not in communion with Rome; therefore the Masses they celebrate are not licit (in other words they don’t conform to Church law in every respect) but because they are celebrated by a priest who has been ordained licitly (and the consecration is not altered), so the Eucharist received at an SSPX mass is valid in the sense that it has the same efficacy as a sacrament and imparts the same graces.

Is that as clear as mud?

NFPgirl
What I meant to say was you are not supposed to. :o
 
Thank you. That makes sense. I was coming at it from the validity angle. The canonist is coming at it from the communion with the minister perspective. That does work.

JR 🙂
Your welcome 🙂 . Their Mass is valid but receiving communion is somewhat frowned upon.

Funny, my parish seems to be very open to people attending Protestant churches but frown upon the Traditionalist Churches. Apparantly heresy is better than schism? :confused:
 
Your welcome 🙂 . Their Mass is valid but receiving communion is somewhat frowned upon.

Funny, my parish seems to be very open to people attending Protestant churches but frown upon the Traditionalist Churches. Apparantly heresy is better than schism? :confused:
There is a canonical difference. Protestants are not heretics. Their founders were heretics. The Catholic Church doesn’t even call them Protestants any more. The laity still uses the word, not the official Church leadership. They are called Reformation communities or simply other Christians.

No one denies that SSPX are Christians. But the original individuals responsible for the schismatic event are still with us. Until they have passed and some generations have passed, then we will deal with them differently. Hopefully, this won’t happen. Hopefully, there will be a solution to the problem.

For example, we do not consider the Orthodox Christians schismatics. We believe they are in schism, but it’s been 1,000 years. The responsible parties are long gone. Today’s Orthodox Christians are not responsible for the schism. They were born into it that tradition.

There is the difference. I hope that helps.

JR 🙂

I should have added also that the mutual excommunications between the Orthodox and the Catholics and the anathemas are being lifted as we speak. The Orthodox hierarchy is willing to deal with Rome. The SSPX wants to deal with Rome on its terms. Rome will not settle for that. The Orthodox have not imposed terms.
 
There is a canonical difference. Protestants are not heretics. Their founders were heretics. The Catholic Church doesn’t even call them Protestants any more. The laity still uses the word, not the official Church leadership. They are called Reformation communities or simply other Christians.

No one denies that SSPX are Christians. But the original individuals responsible for the schismatic event are still with us. Until they have passed and some generations have passed, then we will deal with them differently. Hopefully, this won’t happen. Hopefully, there will be a solution to the problem.

For example, we do not consider the Orthodox Christians schismatics. We believe they are in schism, but it’s been 1,000 years. The responsible parties are long gone. Today’s Orthodox Christians are not responsible for the schism. They were born into it that tradition.

There is the difference. I hope that helps.

JR 🙂
Thank you for enlightening me! 🙂
 
What I meant to say was you are not supposed to. :o
Ah, okay 🙂 Thanks for the clarification! Tis late and sometimes the true meaning of words gets lost in the muck and mire that is cyberspace, ykwim?

Pax,
NFPgirl 😃
 
I’m not quite sure that the information being provided by sincere posters on this thread is either correct or “up to date.”

A couple of things to consider when bandying about the word “schismatic” in relation to the SSPX: in his accompanying letter to the Motu Proprio of Nov. 2007–just a little over one year ago–the Pope refers to the SSPX’s status as “an internal matter of reconciliation within the Church.” Now unless “internal” and “within” have changed their meaning, I am pretty sure that His Holiness does not consider the Society as being outside of Communion with him.

MOST CERTAINLY the Society’s status is IRREGULAR. But to apply the term “schismatic” when our current Pope himself does not do so does not seem to be at the service of the Truth.

In February of this year, 2008, His Excellency Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society published publicly (“The Situation in the Church and Relations With Rome”) that when he was last in Rome he was told by more than a few in the Vatican that the Pope did not wish to hear the term “schismatic” applied to the Society. It is now December 31. I am not aware of any sources which contradict H. E. Fellay’s claim.

Once again, IT SHOULD BE CLEAR TO ALL THE FAITHFUL THAT THE SOCIETY’S STATUS IS IRREGULAR. However, “irregular” does not mean ‘schismatic.’ We go further than the Church Herself does to use words that fo any further.

Thank you for listening, and please pray for the lifting of the excommunications of the Bishops of the Society, and a full integration of the Society into the life of the Church.
 
In many ways the Pope is going towards the societys position. That is where the societys position is Catholic and the majority of the hierarchy position is one of liberal.

The best example is Holy Communion in the Hand, The Pope has banned this practice at his own Masses.

Of course the society will have to admit that there is no outright error in the Vatican council but that is minor once the Pope rids himself of the Sodanos, Bertones, O Connors and so on in the hierarchy.

Paul
 
Maurin,

I think someone has misled you regarding your interpretation that the SSPX is merely “irregular.” Here is the letter you referred to from Benedict XVI, and it reaffirms that reconciliation has NOT taken place.
We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level.
At the time, the Pope primarily wanted to assist the Society of Saint Pius X to recover full unity with the Successor of Peter, and sought to heal a wound experienced ever more painfully. Unfortunately this reconciliation has not yet come about.
Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.
The last paragraph in the quote points to the fact that SSPX will not recognize the new rite as valid and obstinately refuse to celebrate it. This is still at the heart of the matter. I have read statements by the adherents to this movement that the new mass is heretical, and the clergy forbid their members to attend it. As long as this is unreconciled, the society is not simply irregular, but schismatic as Pope John Paul II correctly called it.

There is no document setting aside our former Pontiff’s decree, even though Fellay might wish to have the members think so. Is there a reason any of us should believe Fellay, and not the Church?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top