Vatican gives SSPX doctrinal statement to sign

[robert7685]

I have been following this with interest and I have a question. For those not as familiar with potential meanings of phrases, what exactly does the statement above mean?

Can I, as a Roman Catholic, attend an SSPX Mass on Sunday and fulfill my obligation, or would that be considered scandal?
If the excommunication was lifted by the Holy Father, would the Mass not be acceptable?

My wife and I will be travelling next month and while there are Roman Catholic churches in the area, there is a SSPX Mass at the perfect time and location that fits our schedule that we would like to attend, but only if it is considered proper. If not, we would re-arrange our plans and attend another Mass elsewhere.

I am not looking for opinion, but rather is there any clear teaching or document that anyone is aware of that would clear this up? It seems as if I’ve read opinions on both sides of this fence so to speak.

Thanks in adavance for any assistance.

cheers

There is a 2003 letter from Ecclesia Dei that strongly implies it is fine to attend an SSPX liturgy if it is done out of devotion for the 1962 Mass. I’ll give you a link once I can get to a regular computer. However, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to seek out other Latin Mass parishes in the area in case what I give you doesn’t assure you. The Ecclesia Dei website is a good source, as well as www.fssp.com if you prefer the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter. I know my info says I support the SSPX, but I don’t have any problem with the groups under Ecclesia Dei.

 

[numealinesimpet]

numealinesimpetar:

Originally Posted by numealinesimpet
Just to remind you that, in Church Law, the SSPX are inside the Church, but have no Canonical position - no canonical mandate. But they are inside the Church in an anomalous position, not outside of it.

I have been following this with interest and I have a question. For those not as familiar with potential meanings of phrases, what exactly does the statement above mean?

The decree of excommunication, issued by a cardinal 1988, has been lifted by the authority of Pope Benedict. This means that the priests of the SSPX are part of the Catholic church, and not outside it. The SSPX itself is a “priestly fraternity without vows”: if you ask an SSPX priest what is the purpose of their Fraternity, they will tell you that it is to be come holy and faithful priests.that is all. Their Superiors hold that this is best achieved by holding fast to the practices of the Church as of 1962. The fact that they were effectively the only organised group that adhered to the 1962 Liturgical Life is not their responsibility. Their Good Faith is shown by the fact that Bp Fellay lobbied for several years for the Vatican to affirm publicly that the Tridentine Rite (EF) was still legal, despite what was being widely asserted, including by those in very high positions. Bp Fellay did this, even though he knew that it would inevitably lead to many no longer attending the SSPX Mass Centres when an alternative was being offered with full approval of the local bishop. He stated that he was doing this because the issue was not the welfare of the SSPX, but of the Church. The 1988 excommunications were only the last of a long line of sanctions inflicted, usually for having ignored the previous one … the SSPX have always argued that every single on of these sanctions was irregular an illegal… Attempts to exercise their right to a canonical appeal were blocked, e.g. by Cdl villot, the then Cdl Secretary of State. The remission of the decrees of excommunication was not followed by an explicit remission of the other penalties, which does leave the SSPX in an ‘anomalous’ situation.
Pope Benedict stated that the SSPX have at present no canonical mandate. this means that they do not fit within the regular structure of the hierarchy. for example, the Redemptorists are under a Superior General, who is responsible directly to the Pope. Each diocesan priest is under his ‘Local Ordinary’ (ie diocesan bishop) who, in church Law, is answerable directly to the Pope, but who, since Vatican II, is hamstrung by the National Bishops’ Conference. Pope Benedict found it necessary to remind every one that this NBC has no canonical standing. that means that, if it comes to the crunch, no bishop need follow their directives, as they have no line of authority over him. Opus Dei has a General superior who answers directly to the Pope. thus they are lifted out of the diocesan structure, and no bishop has the authority to forbid them from the territory of his diocese.
Because of the high feelings surrounding the SSPX, the Pope is considering placing the SSPX on a similar footing to the Opus Dei. But this is still under discussion. At present, the position of the SSPX is that they are a legitimate part of the Church: they are the Emergency Staff who, like an ambulance, are provididng emergency cover in the form of Spiritual goods to which the Faithful have a right in Canon Law, sonce they are being blocked by the Mainstream hierarchy. Thus they pray for the diocesan Bishop at every Mass, since they are within his diocese. The 4 SSPX bishops do not claim any diocese or any jurisdiction; they travel around providing emergency Help to such laypeople who request it.
Can I, as a Roman Catholic, attend an SSPX Mass on Sunday and fulfill my obligation, or would that be considered scandal?

Some years ago, when Cdl Perl was asked exactly this, he replied that attendance at an SSPX Mass Centre does fulfil the Sunday Obligation, and he even commented that a modest contribution to the Offertory Collection would be appropriate. Sorry, but I’m away from home & can’t put my finger on the document, but it has been widely publicised.

If the excommunication was lifted by the Holy Father, would the Mass not be acceptable?

My wife and I will be travelling next month and while there are Roman Catholic churches in the area, there is a SSPX Mass at the perfect time and location that fits our schedule that we would like to attend, but only if it is considered proper. If not, we would re-arrange our plans and attend another Mass elsewhere.

I am not looking for opinion, but rather is there any clear teaching or document that anyone is aware of that would clear this up? It seems as if I’ve read opinions on both sides of this fence so to speak.

Thanks in adavance for any assistance.

cheers

 

[numealinesimpet]

Sorry, freshwind, I was ‘interrupted’ before I could proof-read the last post properly.
Here is a link that answers your questions:

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/defense/obligation.htm

On September 27, 2002 , the Vatican’s Ecclesia Dei Commission, in response to someone who asked about attending chapels of the Society of Saint Pius X founded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, wrote in a letter that:
Commissio Pontificia Ecclesia Dei
Romae
September 27, 2002
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.

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. …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,
   /s/ Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl, Secretarius
   numealinesimpetar: my emphasis]
   Comment:
   The Letter is only reasonable considering the fact that the New Code even allows Catholics to receive the sacraments from Non-Catholics:

Canon 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 non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid.”

The same website addresses the question of the Canonical status of the SSPX (whether it is inside or outside the Church):
Cardinal Cassidy, who was Prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for Christian Unity, was asked whether his office should deal with the Society of Saint Pius X as a separate “church”.

Cardinal Cassidy commented in a letter of March 25, 1994, that the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity

“is not concerned with the Society of St. Pius X. The situation of the members of this Society is an internal matter of the Catholic Church. The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the meaning used in the Directory.”

Thus the Vatican considers the Society of Saint Pius X to be an internal Church matter and not a group that is “outside of the Church”.

 

[freshwind]

thank you folks!

I had tried googling it and was having no luck.

After getting a couple of names to add to the google search it provided many good links, some fairly recent as well… it seems that as long as one does not believe the SSPX way is “the only way” or that they know “better” than the Vatican and is the “true church” it is perfectly fine…if one decides that it is the true church then you have essentially excommunicated yourself and broken from Rome.

again…thank you kindly for the assistance

 

[numealinesimpet]

thank you folks!

I had tried googling it and was having no luck.

After getting a couple of names to add to the google search it provided many good links, some fairly recent as well… it seems that as long as one does not believe the SSPX way is “the only way” or that they know “better” than the Vatican and is the “true church” it is perfectly fine…if one decides that it is the true church then you have essentially excommunicated yourself and broken from Rome.

again…thank you kindly for the assistance

Yes, that is my own understanding of the situation. You are welcome!

 

[GaryTaylor]

I caught the Vatican news on this. Probly be some time for a response from the SSPX, that was my impression through.

Peace

 

[JReducation]

Well, there you have it. I’ve been laying out heresy explicitly in post after post around here, just like the rest of the laity no one would listen to for all these years, like the ones who clamored for a 3rd order for the SSPX - YES my dear Brother, I am quite a good student and it was a clear point carefully explained - the Pope is just the Bishop of Rome and the titular head of the Church. THAT’S what finally got your attention? Not the declarations that God doesn’t make miracles and neither did Jesus? That this was being taught in seminaries and no one stopped it? That priests don’t believe Christ is really present in those little wafers? Not portraying the Pope correctly is what shocked you?

Because without the one, the rest falls apart. Without Peter, the rest become moot. He affirms his brothers in the faith? Peter does. Who protects the faith in the Eucharist and other sacraments? Peter does. Who hands down the poewr to confect the sacraments? Peter does. The Church, sacraments and all, is built upon the faith of Peter.

If you knock Peter out of the equation, there is not much use arguing about the rest. That’s why Protestantism lacks sacraments. Protestantism traces its roots to Latin Catholicism. Once they took out the pope and the bishops, the sacramental system collapsed.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[santodomingo]

This is a question for anyone with the theological knowledge necessary to answer, especially Brother JR:

Rome has announced that the proposed canonical status for the SSPX is a personal Prelature, rather than an Ordinariate, such as the Catholic-Anglicans now have. I have several questions:

• Is it correct that for any group in a Prelature to operate legally in a diocese the local bishop must give his permission, whereas this is not the case for a Ordinariate?
• Is it correct that the head of an Ordinariate is always a bishop, whereas not so in a Prelature?
• Is it correct that a Prelature need not necessarily have a bishop of its own at all?
• If the SSPX were given a Prelature, and the bishop of a given diocese where they have a property (a priory, a school, a chapel, a seminary, a retreat centre) refused permission to operate, would they, acording to Canon law, be obliged to close shop and leave?

If the answer to these questions is affirmative I believe the offer will likely be turned down. Appart from doctrinal issues, which are difficult enough, the canonical status of a Prelature (if it is as I suspect) would be totally unfitted to the SSPX. No more than a handful of bishops around the world would authorize the SSPX in their dioceses. There would be exactly the same problem as for the Tridentine Mass when it all depended on the whim of the local bishops, only it would be much worse.

In Spain, where I live, I cannot believe that more than a couple of bishops would want the SSPX in their dioceses, and in countries like France, where the bishops are extremely liberal, the number would certainly be zero. In practice that would mean that the existing priory, schools and mass centres would be declared in violation of canon law, and everything would be even worse than now.

On top of that, if the four existing bishops of the SSPX are denied permission to ordain any more, because a Prelature does not need bishops, we would be back to square 1, exactly the same situation as 1988; Rome waiting for the traditional bishops to die out, and the SSPX having no alternative but to consecrate new bishops in disobedience of the Pope.

I cannot understand why Benedict would want this. If there is good faith on his part, why is he offering this solution that is so likely to lead to further tension? I sincerely hope I am wrong in my belief about the nature of a Prelature.

 

[JReducation]

This is a question for anyone with the theological knowledge necessary to answer, especially Brother JR:

Rome has announced that the proposed canonical status for the SSPX is a personal Prelature, rather than an Ordinariate, such as the Catholic-Anglicans now have. I have several questions:

• Is it correct that for any group in a Prelature to operate legally in a diocese the local bishop must give his permission, whereas this is not the case for a Ordinariate?

The prelature itself operates like a diocese without boundaries and has almost all the rights of a diocese. It is governed by a prelate appointed by the Holy Father. Prelatures can have associations of lay people attached to them. For these associations, Canon Law commands that they establish statutes. These statutes and the erection of these associations must be with the consent of the local bishop.

The canon regarding prelatures does not explain why. However, those parts of Canon Law where it speaks about the rights and duties of bishops, it is very clear that the lay faithful are always the responsibility of the local bishop The example that is often used is that of religious orders. Many religious orders have associations attached to them. To erect these associations in the diocese, they need the consent of the local bishop. If the association is of Pontifical Right, such as the Secular Franciscan Order, the bishop need not approve its statutes, because the pope already approved them. If that’s not the case, then the local bishop does have a voice in the statutes.

The local bishop would not govern the clergy in the prelature or the religious if they have religious, but he is still responsible for the laity, because a the end of the day, they reside in his diocese. He has to know what is being given to them, beyond what is usual: sacraments and faith formation.

• Is it correct that the head of an Ordinariate is always a bishop, whereas not so in a Prelature?

The term ordinariate comes from Ordinary. Typically, an Ordinary is either a bishop or a male religious superior. Since the Ordinariate is not a religious community, then it is governed by a bishop. A prelature is governed by a Prelate. The Prelate, like the religious superior, has all of the authority that a bishop has, but he need not be a bishop. St. Jose Maria Escriva was never a bishop. The current prelate of the Opus Dei is a bishop. The term prelate means an officer of the Church. The prelate governs the prelature in the name of the Holy Father. It is up to the Holy Father who runs the prelature and how much freedom he has.

The prelates can open houses, seminaries and move men along for Holy Orders, just like a religious superior does. He can incardinate men into the prelature, just as religious superior incardinates men into his order. The difference is that priests in a religious order must be consecrated men. Priests in a prelature must always remain secular men.

• Is it correct that a Prelature need not necessarily have a bishop of its own at all?

As I said above, the precedent was set by Opus Dei, the first prelature. Msgr. Escriva was not a bishop, but he was the Prelate. The current prelate is a bishop. The pope can appoint anyone as long as he is at least a deacon. He has to have the right to exercise Ordinary jurisdiction. Only clerics have that right.

• If the SSPX were given a Prelature, and the bishop of a given diocese where they have a property (a priory, a school, a chapel, a seminary, a retreat centre) refused permission to operate, would they, according to Canon law, be obliged to close shop and leave?

The prelature has the right to open houses and seminaries. The local bishop cannot deny them this. They cannot open parishes. A parish is always the extension of the diocese. The Opus Dei has chapels that are open to their members and guests. Many religious orders also have chapels open to their members and guests. Only a diocesan bishop can erect a parish. They can keep their schools, colleges, seminary, etc.

It is expected of them that they work in a fraternal relationship with the local bishops.

I cannot understand why Benedict would want this. If there is good faith on his part, why is he offering this solution that is so likely to lead to further tension? I sincerely hope I am wrong in my belief about the nature of a Prelature.

 

[JReducation]

On top of that, if the four existing bishops of the SSPX are denied permission to ordain any more, because a Prelature does not need bishops, we would be back to square 1, exactly the same situation as 1988; Rome waiting for the traditional bishops to die out, and the SSPX having no alternative but to consecrate new bishops in disobedience of the Pope.

In order to reconcile, be it as a prelature or some other animal, the current bishops can no longer ordain anyone to the order of bishop. No bishop in the world can do that witout a papal mandate. This is how these excommunications began. It had nothing to do with the mass or Vatican II. I’m sure that the SSPX bishops asked for this reconciliation with full knowledge that the days of ordaining bisops without the papal mandate are over.

There is no such thing as a blank check when it comes to ordinations. Bishops are given permission to ordain priests and deacons who quality. They are never given permission to ordain other bishops or to decide who qualifies. That is reserved to the pope alone. They can nominate a candidate. The pope has to approve. If he does not approve, it does not happen.

They also know, right now, that if they dare to ordain another bishop without the papal mandate, they will excommunicate themselves and the chances of being invited back are slim to none. The first time the act of ordaining was a schismatic act, but the individuals involved were never considered schismatic. It’s like the kid who steals a cookie. That does not make him a thief, even though he stole. For God’s sake, he’s 2-years old.

However, after all of this begging to have the excommunication lifted, they turn around and ordain a bishop without a mandate from the pope, then it becomes evident that they are schimatic. In other words, they have set themselves up as a parallel Magisterium.

I don’t want to speak for the SSPX. However, I highly doubt that they have plans of ordaining any more bishops without a papal mandate. If the pope says, “No more bishops” or “I’ll select the bishop”, given what they have been through to get here and given the fact that they are facing pressure from their priests to fix this mess, it would be illogical to be thinking that they will be free to pick and ordain bishops without a mandate.

The only thing that can happen here is that since a prelature depends totally on the pope, he can offer that they can nominate their successor(s). However, this is tricky. The next pope can withdraw that. Prelatures have rules; but unlike the great religious orders, the rules of prelatures are like those of religious congregations. They are not cast in stone. The pope can change them at any time, without consultation.

At this point in the game, they cannot become an order, because their men don’t feel called to the consecrated life. They have only two options, a prelature or an ordinariate. There is nothing else to offer secular priests, unless you invent it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[louis91766]

In order to reconcile, be it as a prelature or some other animal, the current bishops can no longer ordain anyone to the order of bishop. No bishop in the world can do that witout a papal mandate.

Orthodox bishops ordain without a papal mandate. Further, they say that this should be allowed for the Eastern Catholic Churches.

 

[JReducation]

Orthodox bishops ordain without a papal mandate. Further, they say that this should be allowed for the Eastern Catholic Churches.

The Orthodox are governed by the canons of their Churches. As long as they comply with those canons, their ordinations are both valid and licit.

Catholic bishops are governed by the canons of the Catholic Churches. The canons that govern the Latin Church say that you need a papal mandate.

Eastern Catholics have thier own Code of Canon Law. In that code, the Church lays out the conditions and rules for ordaining Eastern Catholc bishops.

The SSPX is Latin Catholic. Therefore, it is governed by the canons of the Latin Church.

The canons of the Latin Church do not allow any bishop to ordain another bishop without the mandate. I’d have to look up up the canon of the Oriental Churches to see how it’s worded in that code.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[louis91766]

The Orthodox are governed by the canons of their Churches. As long as they comply with those canons, their ordinations are both valid and licit.

Catholic bishops are governed by the canons of the Catholic Churches. The canons that govern the Latin Church say that you need a papal mandate.

Eastern Catholics have thier own Code of Canon Law. In that code, the Church lays out the conditions and rules for ordaining Eastern Catholc bishops.

The SSPX is Latin Catholic. Therefore, it is governed by the canons of the Latin Church.

The canons of the Latin Church do not allow any bishop to ordain another bishop without the mandate. I’d have to look up up the canon of the Oriental Churches to see how it’s worded in that code.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Bishops in China ordain without a papal mandate and their seminarians can study in the US Catholic seminaries.

 

[GaryTaylor]

What was the outline of V-II given to the SSPX on the 14th? Anyone have info on this?

 

[catharina]

Bishops in China ordain without a papal mandate and their seminarians can study in the US Catholic seminaries.

Would you provide some documentation
for that two-part statement, please? Thanks.

 

[louis91766]

Would you provide some documentation
for that two-part statement, please? Thanks.

You can read the Pope’s letter of 27 May 2007 to Catholics in China. Also, you might want to look up: 中国天主教爱国会.
or
中國天主教愛國會;
and
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0701903.htm
Zhōngguó Tiānzhǔjiào Àiguó Huì

 

[catharina]

You can read the Pope’s letter of 27 May 2007 to Catholics in China. Also, you might want to look up: 中国天主教爱国会.
or
中國天主教愛國會;
and
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0701903.htm
Zhōngguó Tiānzhǔjiào Àiguó Huì

You might want to catch up to the present day
and read the following very recent news:

catholicnews.sg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6474:china-criticises-vatican-for-excommunications&catid=280:august-14-2011-vol-61-no-16&Itemid=79

"BEIJING – The Chinese government has criticised the Vatican for excommunicating two bishops who were ordained without papal mandate.

… ."

Entire article, dated AUG 14 2011, presents much more detail.

In addition, I know of no Roman Catholic seminarian allowed 
to leave the mainland for any education in the USA.  Do you?

 

[louis91766]

You might want to catch up to the present day
and read the following very recent news:

catholicnews.sg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6474:china-criticises-vatican-for-excommunications&catid=280:august-14-2011-vol-61-no-16&Itemid=79

"BEIJING – The Chinese government has criticised the Vatican for excommunicating two bishops who were ordained without papal mandate.

… ."

Entire article, dated AUG 14 2011, presents much more detail.

In addition, I know of no Roman Catholic seminarian allowed 
to leave the mainland for any education in the USA.  Do you?

i think it has been reported that some Chinese seminarians have studied in the USA:
Did you check the link I gave:
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0701903.htm

 

[louis91766]

In addition, I know of no Roman Catholic seminarian allowed
to leave the mainland for any education in the USA. Do you?

Here is an article which refers to Chinese mainland priests studying in Rome:
“On March 24, some mainland Chinese priests and seminarians studying in Rome gave Cardinal Zen a couplet of eight Chinese characters, also rendered in calligraphy. It says: “Spread the Good News of God/Vitalize Our China.””

catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=19213

 

[louis91766]

In addition, I know of no Roman Catholic seminarian allowed
to leave the mainland for any education in the USA. Do you?

Also:
"Donations from various Catholic institutions have been used to print bibles in China. In these bibles, several of the notes explaining the supremacy of the Pope were deleted or altered.

The donations also supported Patriotic Association seminarians to study in the United States and European seminaries. These seminarians will return to China to be ordained by the Patriotic Association Bishops and serve in the Patriotic Association. Where the loyalties of these seminarians lie is obvious.

In addition, these donations also built and renovated Patriotic Association churches while the loyal priests and bishops are not allowed to have any church or site for offering Masses or holding a meeting.

In the eyes of the faithful in China, the Universal Church HAS clearly endorsed the Patriotic Association and its policy by virtue of its generous donation and enthusiastic participation in the Patriotic Association projects even though the Patriotic Association has publicly rejected the Pope’s supreme administrative, legislative, and judicial authority."
See:
cardinalkungfoundation.org/articles/ccpa.htm