why condemn the SSPX

[Walking_Home]

Not so, WH, not so. I’m as concerned about your soul as those whom you might mislead. It clearly states that the Holy See does not recommend attendance. It clearly does NOT replace Ecclesia Dei. Any reasonable person reading that document, not already looking for an excuse to rebel, would come away from it with the opinion that it addressed a specific situation and was not a blanket permission.

---

Spin it anyway you want JKirk. I am not misleading anyone or rebeling—Msgr. Perl’s statements are in print at the request of Ecclesia Dei.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

Spin it anyway you want JKirk. I am not misleading anyone or rebeling—Msgr. Perl’s statements are in print at the request of Ecclesia Dei.

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

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

Dear Mr. Rebbert,
We wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter to His Eminence Cardinal
Ratzinger. It has been transmitted to this Pontifical Commission as dealing
with matters that come within our particular competence.
With regard to the schismatic Society of St. Pius X we can say the
following:

1. The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained,
   but suspended, that is prohibited from exercising their priestly functions
   because they are not properly incardinated in a diocese or religious
   institute in full communion with the Holy See (cf. canon 265) and also
   because those ordained after the schismatic episcopal ordinations were
   ordained by an excommunicated bishop. They are also excommunicated if
   they adhere to the schism (cf. Ecclesia Del, #5, c). While up to now the
   Holy See has not defined what this .adherence consists in, one could point
   to a wholesale condemnation of the Church since the Second Vatican Council
   and a refusal to be in communion with it (cf. canon 751 on the definition
   of schism). Further, it is likely that these priests, after eleven years
   in a society whose head is now an excommunicated bishop, effectively adhere
   to the schism. . .
2. Concretely this means that the Masses offered by the priests of
   the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to Canon
   Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, however, require that the
   priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since
   that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid. It
   remains true, however, that, if the faithful are genuinely ignorant that the
   priests of the Society of St. Pius X do not have the proper faculty to
   absolve, the Church supplied these faculties so that the sacrament was valid
   (cf. Code of Canon Law c. 144).
3. The situation of the faithful attending chapels of the Society of
   St. Pius X is more complicated. They may attend Mass there primarily
   because of an attraction to the earlier form of the Roman Rite in which
   case they incur no penalty. The difficulty is that the longer they
   frequent these chapels, the more likely it is that they will slowly imbibe
   the schismatic mentality which stands in judgement of the Church and
   refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff and communion with the members of
   the Church subject to him. If that becomes the case, then it would seem
   that they adhere to the schism and are consequently excommunicated.
   For these reasons this Pontifical Commission cannot encourage you
   to frequent the chapel of the Society of St. Pius X. On the other hand it
   would seem that you are among those who attend Mass in chapels
   of the Society of St. Pius X because of the
   reverence and devotion which they find there, because of their
   attraction to the traditional Latin Mass and not because
   they refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff or reject communion with the
   members of the Church subject to him.** At the same time it must be admitted
   that - this is an irregular situation, even if the circumstances which have
   caused it have come about through no fault of your own, and it should be
   remedied as soon as circumstances permit.**
   With prayerful best wishes I remain
   Sincerely yours in Christ,
   Msgr. Camille Perl
   Secretary

You’re spinning because you can’t get any traction. The Holy See doesn’t say what you desperately want the Holy See to say.

 

[latinmasslover]

That’s just it, you aren’t allowed, Walking Home’s blatant disregard for the truth notwithstanding.

And as for your remark re: canon law, that’s basic Catholic teaching, it’s “traditional!” The pope is, in canon law, the Supreme Legislator and interpreter. Canon law means what he says. He can abrogate it, promulgate it, modify it, dispense with it, give a license around it, make an exception. He’s makes it and he is not bound BY it.

Still not guaranteed to be free of error. If he can change it, he can change it not for the better.

 

[latinmasslover]

That’s just it, you aren’t allowed,

Actually, we are, for moral reasons among others, as long as we do not intend it as an act of schism.

 

[Walking_Home]

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

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

Dear Mr. Rebbert,
We wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter to His Eminence Cardinal
Ratzinger. It has been transmitted to this Pontifical Commission as dealing
with matters that come within our particular competence.
With regard to the schismatic Society of St. Pius X we can say the
following:

1. The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained,
   but suspended, that is prohibited from exercising their priestly functions
   because they are not properly incardinated in a diocese or religious
   institute in full communion with the Holy See (cf. canon 265) and also
   because those ordained after the schismatic episcopal ordinations were
   ordained by an excommunicated bishop. They are also excommunicated if
   they adhere to the schism (cf. Ecclesia Del, #5, c). While up to now the
   Holy See has not defined what this .adherence consists in, one could point
   to a wholesale condemnation of the Church since the Second Vatican Council
   and a refusal to be in communion with it (cf. canon 751 on the definition
   of schism). Further, it is likely that these priests, after eleven years
   in a society whose head is now an excommunicated bishop, effectively adhere
   to the schism. . .
2. Concretely this means that the Masses offered by the priests of
   the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to Canon
   Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, however, require that the
   priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since
   that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid. It
   remains true, however, that, if the faithful are genuinely ignorant that the
   priests of the Society of St. Pius X do not have the proper faculty to
   absolve, the Church supplied these faculties so that the sacrament was valid
   (cf. Code of Canon Law c. 144).
3. The situation of the faithful attending chapels of the Society of
   St. Pius X is more complicated. They may attend Mass there primarily
   because of an attraction to the earlier form of the Roman Rite in which
   case they incur no penalty. The difficulty is that the longer they
   frequent these chapels, the more likely it is that they will slowly imbibe
   the schismatic mentality which stands in judgement of the Church and
   refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff and communion with the members of
   the Church subject to him. If that becomes the case, then it would seem
   that they adhere to the schism and are consequently excommunicated.
   For these reasons this Pontifical Commission cannot encourage you
   to frequent the chapel of the Society of St. Pius X. On the other hand it
   would seem that you are among those who attend Mass in chapels
   of the Society of St. Pius X because of the
   reverence and devotion which they find there, because of their
   attraction to the traditional Latin Mass and not because
   they refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff or reject communion with the
   members of the Church subject to him.** At the same time it must be admitted
   that - this is an irregular situation, even if the circumstances which have
   caused it have come about through no fault of your own, and it should be
   remedied as soon as circumstances permit.**
   With prayerful best wishes I remain
   Sincerely yours in Christ,
   Msgr. Camille Perl
   Secretary

You’re spinning because you can’t get any traction. The Holy See doesn’t say what you desperately want the Holy See to say.

---

Well JKirk—Msgr. Perl is in a better position than you and/or me to know the mind of the Pope. You are binding the Pope to not being able to see the situation between Rome and the SSPX differently and allowing Msgr. Perl to act accordingly.

 

[latinmasslover]

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

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

Dear Mr. Rebbert,
We wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter to His Eminence Cardinal
Ratzinger. It has been transmitted to this Pontifical Commission as dealing
with matters that come within our particular competence.
With regard to the schismatic Society of St. Pius X we can say the
following:

1. The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained,
   but suspended, that is prohibited from exercising their priestly functions
   because they are not properly incardinated in a diocese or religious
   institute in full communion with the Holy See (cf. canon 265) and also
   because those ordained after the schismatic episcopal ordinations were
   ordained by an excommunicated bishop. They are also excommunicated if
   they adhere to the schism (cf. Ecclesia Del, #5, c). While up to now the
   Holy See has not defined what this .adherence consists in, one could point
   to a wholesale condemnation of the Church since the Second Vatican Council
   and a refusal to be in communion with it (cf. canon 751 on the definition
   of schism). Further, it is likely that these priests, after eleven years
   in a society whose head is now an excommunicated bishop, effectively adhere
   to the schism. . .
2. Concretely this means that the Masses offered by the priests of
   the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to Canon
   Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, however, require that the
   priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since
   that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid. It
   remains true, however, that, if the faithful are genuinely ignorant that the
   priests of the Society of St. Pius X do not have the proper faculty to
   absolve, the Church supplied these faculties so that the sacrament was valid
   (cf. Code of Canon Law c. 144).
3. The situation of the faithful attending chapels of the Society of
   St. Pius X is more complicated. They may attend Mass there primarily
   because of an attraction to the earlier form of the Roman Rite in which
   case they incur no penalty. The difficulty is that the longer they
   frequent these chapels, the more likely it is that they will slowly imbibe
   the schismatic mentality which stands in judgement of the Church and
   refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff and communion with the members of
   the Church subject to him. If that becomes the case, then it would seem
   that they adhere to the schism and are consequently excommunicated.
   For these reasons this Pontifical Commission cannot encourage you
   to frequent the chapel of the Society of St. Pius X. On the other hand it
   would seem that you are among those who attend Mass in chapels
   of the Society of St. Pius X because of the
   reverence and devotion which they find there, because of their
   attraction to the traditional Latin Mass and not because
   they refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff or reject communion with the
   members of the Church subject to him.** At the same time it must be admitted
   that - this is an irregular situation, even if the circumstances which have
   caused it have come about through no fault of your own, and it should be
   remedied as soon as circumstances permit.**
   With prayerful best wishes I remain
   Sincerely yours in Christ,
   Msgr. Camille Perl
   Secretary

You’re spinning because you can’t get any traction. The Holy See doesn’t say what you desperately want the Holy See to say.

You are the one interpreting that your own way. We never said that Rome **encourages **attendence at the SSPX chapels. We simply said that it is permissible, depending on your motives, as this document proves. Quit misconstruing our words, that is very misleading.

 

[latinmasslover]

Amen.

Did you get a chance to read the quotations and text from Archbishop Burke? I am curious as to your opinion on them. It had been sometime since I read them and I was frankly rather surprised at how strong his wording was. He definitely makes a strong case based on Canon Law. It is men like Archbishop Burke and Bishop Bruskewitz that make me think the prudent move for any Catholic is to avoid the SSPX at all costs and seek out approved extraordinary Masses.

Not yet, but I will try to today or tomorrow. My sister just moved out so I’ve been a little busy.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You are the one interpreting that your own way. We never said that Rome **encourages **attendence at the SSPX chapels. We simply said that it is permissible, depending on your motives, as this document proves. Quit misconstruing our words, that is very misleading.

Not so, Rome was addressing a SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE, not giving a blanket permission. I’m not misconstruing ANYTHING. Ask any apologist on these fora, write the Holy See, whatever, they’re not going to tell you that it is OVERALL permissible depending on your motives (because the warning to the faithful about the imbibing of schism still remains). They addressed a particular circumstance.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

Well JKirk—Msgr. Perl is in a better position than you and/or me to know the mind of the Pope. You are binding the Pope to not being able to see the situation between Rome and the SSPX differently and allowing Msgr. Perl to act accordingly.

Once again, I hope you stretch before you make these leaps.
All I’ve done is REPEAT what the Pope and the Msgr said.

 

[po18guy]

Why is it that many Catholics condemn the SSPX with such vehemence and yet say very little, if anything, about the liberals who are trying to rid the Church of all things Catholic? Why do they condemn the SSPX as being outside the Church, while at the same time praising God for the faith being taught at heretic ecclesial communities?

This is question is for anyone, but especially for those Catholics that are in fact orthodox, but still dislike the SSPX.

Please remember Christian charity in your responses.

Ever receive an unsolicited copy of Catholic Family News ? In it, they accuse Benedict XVI of lying. I see nothing but bitterness in their writings. This is probably not reflective of the entire organization, but disobedience is disobedience, no matter where it occurs. Whether dissent is liberal or reactionary, it is violence to the Body of Christ.

 

[Sure]

---

Well JKirk—Msgr. Perl is in a better position than you and/or me to know the mind of the Pope. You are binding the Pope to not being able to see the situation between Rome and the SSPX differently and allowing Msgr. Perl to act accordingly.

And what do you say to Archbishop Burke’s statements on excommunicated and suspended priests and their Masses? His conclusions seems to be a bit different (and more grounded in Canon law) than Msgr. Perle’s. Plus he writes in a public document not a private document and holds a much higher position in the Vatican than Msgr. Perle.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Well JKirk—Msgr. Perl is in a better position than you and/or me to know the mind of the Pope. You are binding the Pope to not being able to see the situation between Rome and the SSPX differently and allowing Msgr. Perl to act accordingly.

Once again, I hope you stretch before you make these leaps.
All I’ve done is REPEAT what the Pope and the Msgr said.

---

Again JKirk—you are making yourself your own authority to continue your spin. I have stated what Msgr. Perl has stated—what I have not done—is bind the Pope in that he could not have seen things differently and allowed Msgr. Perl to act.

 

[JohnPaulTwoToo]

…yet say very little, if anything, about the liberals who are trying to rid the Church of all things Catholic?

I suppose it all depends on where you sit. In my neck of the woods, the liberals present us with numerous targets, so it’s a great shooting match:

Liberalism is a Sin

Liberationism for North America

Now, I suppose if I had SSPXers in my neighborhood, I’d give them more thought. The Divine Mercy novena certainly gives them equal consideration:

Fifth Day.

“Today bring to Me the souls of heretics and schismatic, and immerse them in the ocean of My mercy. During My bitter Passion they tore at My Body and Heart; that is, My Church. As they return to unity with the Church, My wounds heal, and in this way they alleviate My Passion.”

Most merciful Jesus, Goodness Itself, You do not refuse light to those who seek it of You. Receive into the abode of Your Most Compassionate Heart the souls of heretics and schismatic. Draw them by Your light into the unity of the Church, and do not let them escape from the abode of Your Most Compassionate Heart; but bring it about that they, too, come to adore the generosity of Your mercy.

Even for those who have torn the garment of Your unity, A fount of mercy flows from Your Heart. The Omnipotence of Your mercy, Oh God. Can lead these souls out of error.

Eternal Father, turn Your merciful gaze upon the souls of heretics and schismatic, who have squandered Your blessings and misused Your graces by obstinately persisting in their errors. Do not look upon their errors, but upon the love of Your own Son and upon His bitter Passion, which He underwent for their sake, since they too, are enclosed in the Most Compassionate Heart of Jesus. Bring it about that they also may glorify Your great mercy for endless ages. Amen.

I don’t leave out one or the other.

 

[bear06]

Modernists oppose the Church, the SSPX doesn’t. That’s the difference, and it has nothing to do with personal opinion. The SSPX (their “teachings”) are backed by 2000 years of Catholicism, the Modernists can only go back to a very corrupt interpretation of Vatican II.

They actually do oppose the Church. They just don’t oppose what they perceive to be the Church. If one reads their writings, they often refer to the “post conciliar” Church as if it’s a different Church. It’s very hard to make statements like:
sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/post-conciliar_church_a_new_religion.htm

consequently cannot be denied that Vatican II attempts to constitute a new religion in radical rupture with all of Catholic Tradition and teaching, a new religion whose principal purpose is to exalt the natural dignity of the human person and to bring about a “religious” unity of mankind. However, the subtle cleverness of this operation must also be noted. It is the traditional hierarchical structure of the Church, its Mass, its devotions and prayers, its catechisms and teachings, and now even its Rosary that have all been infiltrated with the principles of the new religion. This new religion has been swallowed down unwittingly by many Catholics precisely because it hides, as a caricature, behind the outward appearance of Catholicism. The end result is a strange mixture of Catholicism and the new religion.

This is the reason for which we have every right to condemn the post-Conciliar revolution for the new religion that it is, while at the same time we must respect the offices and functions of those who hold positions in the Church. Likewise, we must admit that many Catholics in good faith still retain the true Faith in their hearts, believing on the authority of God, Who reveals divine truth through the Catholic Church, although it is often tainted to varying degrees by the principles of the new religion. Consequently, it does not at all follow from the fact that the Vatican II religion is truly a new religion, that we should maintain that we are the only Catholics left, that the bishops and the pope have necessarily lost the Faith, and that we must not pray for them or respect their position in the Church. This false assertion of the sedevacantists is much too simple, and does not account for the complicated mixture of the new religion and the elements of Catholic Faith and life that is the reality that is actually happening in the Novus Ordo. Our duty is not to condemn and excommunicate, but to help Catholics of good faith in the modern Church to make the necessary discernment, in order to totally abandon the new religion, embrace Tradition, and remain Catholic. Such must be the goal of our conversations on the subject

and say that you are not in opposition to the Church unless of course you believe you are the Church and that the reigning Magisterium is not.

Honestly, if you read the writings of the SSPX in depth, you will find them most often speaking out of both sides of their mouth.

 

[Godi]

It is the Society of Saint Pius X. It is a group of bishops and priests who are not in complete union with Rome following a schismatic act of episcopal consecration without papal mandate in 1988.

… and I might add, for Roman Catholics it would be an illicit Mass to attend.

 

[Aramis]

It is my understanding that there never was a formal excommunication. By his disobedience Archbishop Lefebvre excommunicated himself. However he believed that the Church was in a time of crises and it was his duty to consecrate the Bishops. He believed that the following canons allowed him do this.

Marcel Lefebvre, and all four bishops he consecrated illicitly, including Fellay, were formally excommunicated by Pope John Paul II. Meaning their faculties are also suspended.

The rest of the SSPX were not formally excommunicated.

see vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html
and read paragraph 3 carefully.

3. 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, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)

Emphasis from Vatican presentation.

 

[Sure]

The rest of the SSPX were not formally excommunicated.

But they were suspended.

 

[Aramis]

But they were suspended.

True. So they are not supposed to say any masses for the public. THey may not hear confessions except in extremis. THey may not represent the church nor preach publicly.

 

[Sure]

True. So they are not supposed to say any masses for the public. THey may not hear confessions except in extremis. THey may not represent the church nor preach publicly.

Interestingly, Archbishop Burke states that when a priest attempts to “exercise priestly ministry outside of the communion of the Church” he commits the ecclesiastical crime of schism which, of course, carries with it the penalty of excommunication. It would appear from this that all SSPX priests who celebrate Mass have, in fact, excommunicated themselves even though it has not been officially declared.

 

[Silver_Thread]

---

Do you not think that children have been born and are being born within the SSPX. Basing your argument on protestants and Orthodox being born on the outside — does not hold water–when taking into account that children are also being born within the SSPX community.

Concerning those who attend a Mass celebrated by a SSPX priest or those children born to those who attend, aren’t we getting into Invincible or Inculpable Ignorance and do we want to open up that can of worms.