SSPX in Schism? You can believe Fr. Newman or the Church!

SSPX in schism? You can believe Fr. Newman... or you can believe the Church South Carolina pastor warns flock SSPX attendance "morally illicit" and "gravely sinful"

Greenville, South Carolina — Noted author and commentator George Weigel's book Letters to a Young Catholic highlights St. Mary's parish, under the direction of Fr. Jay Scott Newman, JCL, as a particularly bright beacon in the continuing wasteland of the post-Vatican II devastation. St. Mary's is a steadily growing parish with lots of young families, and many who are open to life and attempting to lead holy, Catholic lives of discipleship.

Indeed, a handful of families have even moved to the Greenville area, in part at least, due to Weigel's endorsement of Fr. Newman and St. Mary's. While there is no Traditional Latin Mass offered at St. Mary's, the Novus Ordo is offered somewhat along the lines of those who advocate "the reform of the reform" of the 1970 Bugnini missal, with very High Church Anglican qualities, which is often quite edifying to those Catholics who have experienced abuses and banality in their own parish churches across the country.

At the time of this article, the motu proprio freeing the Traditional Roman rite of Holy Mass was issued yesterday, but Fr. Newman, exactly one week prior, in his July 1 bulletin letter to the 2,500 families at St. Mary's said, "Whatever else may be the case, there will certainly be no changes made in the present way we celebrate the Missal of 1970 in our scheduled liturgies, and pending a careful study of the document, I do not anticipate that a regularly scheduled Tridentine Mass will be celebrated here at St. Mary's." As one of but three priests at St. Mary's, Fr. Newman, according to Summorum Pontificum, has absolutely no authority to forbid the other two pastors from offering the Traditional Latin Mass any time they desire. According to the document, even with a Mass offered "without the people," the priest is to accommodate any lay faithful who desire to attend the Traditional Mass.

Fr. Newman, one of orthodox and "conservative" pastors is obviously gearing his congregation up to inoculate them against any potential effects it might have on his parish by his two bulletin letters of June 24 and July 1, in which he begins to "prepare" his congregation for the freedom of the extraordinary Roman rite.

Fr. Newman's opposition to traditionalist Catholics and things "traddy" (like "effeminate" lace and Roman vestments) is well known in the Upstate (Greenville-Spartanburg) of South Carolina and to readers in blogdom. Fortunately, for those attached to Tradition in the Upstate, the Holy Ghost has been working wonders with Baptists and other converts at St. Mary's, and with two who have been ordained priests — and others seriously considering vocations. There are others too, and nearly all of them have positive dispositions toward offering the Traditional Latin Mass and sacraments, as well as toward traditional theology. Many of them got their start at St. Mary's with the reverence and solemnity found there.

On June 24, the Feast of the Birth of St. John the Baptist, Fr. Newman took up his entire bulletin letter to warn his congregation about the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and those Catholics in the Upstate whom he has apparently heard have been frequenting chapels of the Society of St. Pius X on those Sundays when the Traditional Latin Mass is not available at the indult parish of Prince of Peace in Taylors.

The full text of the letter can be found online at St. Mary's website at http://stmarysgvl.org/ourparish/2007-the-birth-of-john-the-baptist. Fr. Newman outlines Pope Benedict's intention to publish the motu proprio freeing the "Tridentine" Mass, as he calls it. Fr. Newman explains that he will "take great care to explain" the meaning of the document to the liturgical life of the Church once it is issued, but in the rest of the letter, gives a concise history of the Society of St. Pius X.

With a canon law degree, and with notable and outstanding rhetorical and homiletic skills, Fr. Newman's written and spoken words on this topic carry great weight, not only to those members of his parish, but for Upstate Catholics as well. Therefore, it is imperative, as it is for every Catholic priest, that his writings and sermons should reflect the teaching of the Church — be it of a doctrinal or disciplinary nature.

Fr. Newman did not respond to numerous requests for a written or telephone interview over the course of more than a week prior to deadline.

In his bulletin letter, Fr. Newman wrote, "For now, however, I write to warn you about a group of renegade bishops and priests who are leading people out of full communion with the Catholic Church in the name of the old liturgy."

Compare Fr. Newman's description of the SSPX bishops and priests as "renegade" with the term Darío Cardinal Castrillón, Prefect of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED), used at the May 16, 2007 Conference of Latin American bishops where he explained how the PCED was fully engaged with bringing the SSPX bishops and priests into full canonical regularization. Cardinal Castrillón calls them "brothers." [1]

Also, more recently, Cardinal Castrillón said the following about the SSPX and particularly Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General, during a March 17 interview with Italian journalist Simone Ortolani, published on the Nihil Obstat website:

"I know there are in the Fraternity people filled with good will," Cardinal Castrillón said. "The Superior General, His Excellency, Bishop Bernard Fellay, has in the past years persevered in dialogue." It seems from this public interview that Cardinal Castrillón does not consider the SSPX bishops nor priests to be "renegades," but instead as "brothers."

In the second part of the sentence, Fr. Newman opines that the SSPX bishops and priests "are leading people out of full communion with the Catholic Church in the name of the old liturgy." Because he is addressing his parish, and is not a bishop addressing his priests, the "people" Fr. Newman is apparently referring to are laymen, not priests or other clerics.

As such, the question needs to be raised; what does the Church officially teach about Catholics who attend SSPX chapels out of spiritual necessity with no desire whatsoever to separate themselves from full communion? In Fr. Newman's July 8, 2007 sermon at St. Mary's, he reportedly repeated that the SSPX is in schism, directly counter to what the Church teaches, as Cardinal Castrillón has repeatedly said in numerous public interviews.

The immediate question that comes to mind to a faithful Catholic is that if this is truly happening — Catholics being led out of "full communion," or in the traditional ecclesiology, "out of the Church" — then wouldn't it be an act of pastoral solicitude on the part of Fr. Newman to offer his parishioners a "wide and generous application" of the Traditional Roman rite on a regular basis in order to keep his flock in "full communion" as Pope John Paul II requested 19 years ago?

Cardinal Castrillón answered this statement of Fr. Newmans's regarding Catholic faithful in his February 8, 2007 interview, in the German Die Tagespost.

"The bishops, priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics. It is Archbishop Lefebrve who has undertaken an illicit episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics." [2] Fr. Newman says the laymen are being led out of full communion and that the SSPX priests and lay faithful are in schism. The Church, through the PCED prefect, has repeatedly denied this assertion.

In no official correspondence from the PCED, nor in public interviews, has Cardinal Castrillón ever stated that laymen become "in partial communion" by attending SSPX chapels to fulfill their Sunday obligation. [3] In fact, there are no lay faithful who are members of the SSPX, which is only comprised of priests, four bishops, and some monks and nuns.

While the PCED confirms that Archbishop Lefebvre and the four consecrated bishops excommunicated themselves when the 1988 ordinations took place, it repeatedly stated that the SSPX priests, while suspended, are not excommunicated, nor schismatic. Despite Fr. Newman's warnings to the contrary, the lay faithful incur no sin, nor any penalties whatsoever. The SSPX priests, of course, rely upon a canon in the Code of Canon Law which speaks of "a state of emergency within the Church," and that "the salvation of souls" is the ultimate goal of Canon Law.

The PCED is the Holy See's official commission charged with providing official answers to priests, laymen and bishops who inquire about the status of the SSPX and who inquire about other matters regarding the Traditional Roman liturgy. Answers from the congregation to personal correspondence can be received and acted upon by the recipient with a moral certainty, according to the Holy See.

There is no known public, nor private correspondence from the PCED that declares that Catholic laymen who attend SSPX chapels out of necessity are in "imperfect communion" as Fr. Newman claims. In fact, the only repeated correspondence from the PCED reads that a Catholic incurs no sin for attending SSPX chapels and mentions nothing about being led out of "full communion" into "partial communion."

The PCED has always repeatedly stressed that while the commission cannot recommend attendance at the SSPX chapels, attendance there does indeed fulfill a Catholic's Sunday obligation. The commission has repeatedly written in official correspondence that it is not a sin as long as the reason for doing so is not to formally separate one's self from his pastor, bishop or the Pope and/or the teaching of the Church.

If the Holy See thought that such attendance would lead Catholics into imperfect communion, wouldn't they have to advise their attendance would indeed be sinful? The PCED says it is not a sin, and in fact, even advises Catholics that it would be okay to contribute to the collection. Wouldn't it be sinful for Msgr. Perl and the PCED to lead Catholics astray by claiming it was not sinful, if they were indeed being led into "imperfect communion?"

In an official correspondence from the PCED's Secretary Msgr. Camille Perl (which can be found in its entirety here http://www.unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm), the commission wrote the following:

Msgr. Perl said, "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."

So, while it is clear that the PCED "cannot recommend" attendance at SSPX Masses, the commission leaves it to the decision of each and every Catholic as to determine whether or not he or she should fulfill his Sunday obligation there, depending of course upon a number of factors.

Of course, a Catholic often runs as great a risk of "imperfect communion" by attending many Novus Ordo parishes in dioceses in "full canonical communion" with the Church through illicit or invalid Masses and/or sacraments.

One example of this paradox was recently told by a father and mother this week who wished to remain nameless. They were recently on vacation in an unnamed diocese and witnessed an invalid baptism (due to improper form) and most likely, two invalid Masses (due to improper form), with every single Mass they attended being illicit due to the pastor making up words not in the Missal or changing or omitting words in the official Missal. Each and every Mass celebrated in the Novus Ordo which does not adhere strictly to the wording and ceremonies authored by the Church is also in fact illicit.

Some friends of theirs, prior to joining them on vacation, heard this story about the multiple parishes their friends attended in this diocese, and upon arriving, decided to take the safe and sure route by driving an hour and a half to the nearest SSPX chapel, where their family had a valid and spiritually grace-filled Mass, albeit "illicit." The difference of course was that at the SSPX Mass, the Holy Eucharist was truly confected.

Illicit or illegal Masses and sacraments occur often even at "conservative," "reform of the reform" churches by priests who sometimes substitute the correct vernacular translations (e.g.,"I pray that this sacrifice, both yours and mine, may be acceptable to God the Almighty Father") instead of using the incorrect translations provided by ICEL with the approval of the USSCB and the Holy See. In other words, a priest who corrects even one phrase or word in the Novus Ordo to align it more accurately with the original Latin, is in fact celebrating an illicit Mass, even though he is being more faithful to the Latin and the intention of the Church by doing so.

"This was an act of schism, [Ed. Note: Archbishop Lefebvre's consecration of four bishops without pontifical mandate] a grave offense against the unity of the Catholic Church, and from that day in 1988, the bishops and priests of the SSPX have been in a state of schism and have incurred the penalty of excommunication." This sentence is absolutely true according to what the Ecclesia Dei Adflicta letter of Pope John Paul II stated, issued in July 1988. He called the consecrations a schismatic act. However, Cardinal Castrillón has repeatedly said more recently in numerous public interviews that there is currently no formal schism with the SSPX. Also, the Ecclesia Dei Adflicta letter said that the consecration of bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre was a "schismatic act," not an act of schism, which is very different in canonical language. A schismatic act might mean a person is "on a trajectory toward schism," while an "act of schism," is a formal act completely breaking with the Church, which the PCED, and thus the Church, has repeatedly denied.

Fr. Newman continues, explicitly stating the exact opposite of what the PCED, representing the current official position of the Church, and thus the current Pope, has repeatedly written in official correspondence. Fr. Newman said, "Moreover, the Holy See has made it clear many times over that it is morally illicit for any Catholic to attend Mass celebrated by a priest of the SSPX or to receive any sacrament from one of these priests." This is patently false and untrue.

The Holy See, through the PCED, has made it clear in numerous occasions, that a Catholic layman who attends an SSPX chapel to fulfill his Sunday obligation out of spiritual necessity is not committing any sin or delict. As shown previously, despite Fr. Newman's insistence, the SSPX priests, bishops and those Catholic faithful who attend their chapels, are not in formal schism. The bishops continue to remain under the censure of excommunication, according to the PCED.

Fr. Newman's bulletin letter continues: "What is never lawful, though, is for Catholics to attend a Mass celebrated by a priest of the SSPX or to receive any sacraments from priests of the Society. The SSPX maintains chapels in Mt. Holly, NC, and in Atlanta, and you may have heard of Catholics attending Mass in these places while offering a variety of bogus justifications for this disobedience."

Fr. Newman is quite simply wrong about this, according to Cardinal Castrillón and Msgr. Perl, charged by the Holy See with responsibility for traditionalist Catholics. Again, Catholics can rely upon the rulings of this commission with a moral certainty, which is much greater than the individual erroneous opinions of individual priest, no matter how "orthodox." No Catholic is doing anything morally wrong or sinful by frequenting Masses to fulfill his Sunday obligation at an SSPX chapel if doing so simply for spiritual reasons related to the 1962 liturgy.

If the "bogus justifications for this disobedience" (disobedience to whom?) constitute following strictly what the Church officially teaches and using it to form and act according to his Catholic conscience, then again, who is being disobedient to whom?

Is the Catholic layman being disobedient to Fr. Newman and the Church, or is Fr. Newman's apparently incorrect interpretation, conclusion and warning disobedient to the PCED, the Church, the Holy See, and the moral certitude to which Catholics can attach to official correspondence to questions from the PCED?

Fr. Newman continues: "As your pastor, I must warn you that it is gravely immoral to participate in any way in these illicit and schismatic acts of worship, and I urge you in the Name of God not to do so or to encourage others to do so, even by your silence."

Does the same warning apply to Catholics who routinely in parishes throughout the world participate in illicit and invalid Novus Ordo Masses? The Holy See, through the PCED, has never explicitly stated that it is gravely immoral to participate in SSPX sacraments.

Fr. Newman states that "in the Name of God" Catholics are not allowed to participate in the SSPX sacraments, under penalty of grave matter (thus knowingly, he tells his 6,000 parishioners, they are committing a mortal sin, thus risking eternal damnation!), and/or are even silent about it to their other Catholic friends, and that they are obligated to spread the word that the SSPX is in schism (which the Church denies) and Catholics cannot attend Mass there.

All this despite the fact that the PCED, a commission of the Holy See, has repeatedly said that there is no sin involved for Catholics, nor are they separating themselves imperfectly or through schism from the Church.

Fr. Newman finishes by saying: "Our constant goal must be to live and die in full communion with the Lord Jesus and His Holy Church, and that cannot be accomplished by acts of schism."

Amen. Outside the Church, there is no salvation. As a thrice-declared dogma of the Faith, this is of course true. But the Church says that the priests and bishops are not in formal schism, and neither are the laymen. This is not my personal opinion, but that of the Church.

What schismatics in the history of the Church have offered the Holy Father, through their bishop, 2.5 million rosary intentions for the re-establishment of the Kingship of Christ in society and the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary? [4]

As traditional Catholic parents do everything they can in their power to follow the mind and the heart of the Church, it is difficult to understand how Fr. Newman comes to the conclusions he reaches in his warning to his parishioners when the PCED prefect, Cardinal Castrillón, and his Commission have repeatedly and publicly come to the exactly the opposite conclusions.

Is Fr. Newman relying only upon the previous Ecclesia Dei Adflicta document and refusing to acknowledge the official correspondence of the PCED or numerous public interviews by its Cardinal prefect as giving further interpretation to the original Ecclesia Dei Adflicta document? What about our duty to "read the signs of the times?" [5]

Why would Fr. Newman think the timing is now to opportune to warn his congregation and rail against the SSPX bishops and priests when one of their primary tenets they have always held will be officially recognized by the Sovereign Pontiff on July 7, 2007 — the motu proprio acknowledging what the SSPX bishops, priests, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and traditionalists worldwide have maintained for years? That is, the Traditional Roman rite in its now extraordinary form has never, and never in fact could be, abrogated.

Every Latin-rite priest has always had the authority to offer the Roman rite of Mass of All Ages, developing organically, but in its essential form and elements, since the third century.

This following paragraph written by Fr. Newman was from the July 1, 2007 bulletin, whose entirety can be found at http://stmarysgvl.org/ourparish/2007-thirteenth-sunday-of-the-year.

"When this document is finally published, there will no doubt be a circus of media attention of the most sensational kind, but please do not be confused or disturbed by what you read in the papers or see on television. Whatever else may be the case, there will certainly be no changes made in the present way we celebrate the Missal of 1970 in our scheduled liturgies, and pending a careful study of the document, I do not anticipate that a regularly scheduled Tridentine Mass will be celebrated here at St. Mary's. For now, simply know that a document will probably appear this summer, and when it does, we will study it together."

Fr. Newman warns his flock against becoming "confused or disturbed" by gaining interpretations of the document from the media, but that he will lead them in studying it together through the Summer. If the document is in fact only three or four pages as has been reported, it shouldn't take too long for the study to be complete. And then perhaps, with true pastoral solicitude, he will implement it within the mind and will of the Holy Father, both the letter and the spirit, in order to keep his flock from being endangered by SSPX chapels.

Thanks in great part to the advances of the Web and news dissemination and translations from around the world, Catholics can form their well-formed Catholic consciences not only by the bulletin announcements of priests, but especially by reading, studying and praying and discerning with careful attention the official, authoritative teaching of the authentic, ordinary and extraordinary magisterium in its doctrine, discipline and liturgical documents. While the public interviews of Holy See cardinals, archbishops and bishops, are not usually protected in the same manner as official documents, they can still give lay Catholics a good perspective on trends and on reading "the signs of the times" within the Church.

According to Cardinal Castrillón, the SSPX bishops and priests are in the process of canonical reinsertion (formal regularization). He has also repeatedly affirmed that Catholic laymen who frequent their chapels are not in grave sin, as Fr. Newman warns, or under any canonical penalty whatsoever. [6]

For particular treatment of the fate of Catholic children baptized by SSPX priests at their chapels, see especially the full text of PCED official correspondence with the Archdiocese of Salzburg. [7] This correspondence from May 2006 confirms that Catholics who attend SSPX chapels are to be treated as "Catholic faithful."

The document also specifically states that unless Catholics publicly manifest erroneous beliefs that the SSPX organization is exclusively "the one, true Church" they are to be considered Catholics in good standing. It reiterates that there is no penalty for merely attending SSPX chapels, nor from receiving the sacrament of baptism from an SSPX priest. [8]

True pastoral solicitude would entail not in spreading calumnies about those Catholics who attend SSPX chapels in order to provide the full Catholic liturgical and musical patrimony for the formation of their children. A frequent celebration of the Mass of Ages, the Mass of All Times, and of our Fathers in the Faith at every parish would be solicitous for those "second-class faithful" that Cardinal Castrillón cautioned pastors and bishops to minister to:

"In the Church there is a great variety of gifts placed at the service of different levels of consciousness and sensitivity, all with their own specific traits, that find a place within the abundant richness of Catholicity. It cannot be denied that within this variety of gifts and sensitivities we have also the faithful called 'traditionalists,' that they should not be seen as 'second class faithful," but should be protected in their right to be able to express their faith and piety in accordance with their particular spirituality, which the Holy Father recognizes as totally legitimate. So it is not the case to oppose, as if they were in some ways antagonists, two different sensitivities: the one called 'traditionalist' and one so called 'modern'; it is instead the case of the freedom to proclaim the same Catholic Faith, with different emphases and expressions that are both legitimate, in full and reciprocal fraternal respect." [9]

Let us all pray that Pope John Paul's encouragement to bishops and priests to be widely generous to those Catholics attached to the Church's Latin liturgical traditions bears fruit especially now after the promulgation of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.

Thanks to "New Catholic" for the Spanish-to-English translation. The original Spanish can be found at the Latin American bishops' official website. http://www.celam.info/content/view/277/332/

[2] See previous article from the March 31 The Remnant, http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mershon/070410, entitled, "Cardinal Castrillón: SSPX not in schism."

In a much overlooked and little discussed interview published February 8, 2007, in the German Die Tagespost, Cardinal Castrillón said he rejected the term and idea of "ecumenism" from within the Church as a reasoning behind the continuing discussions and open communications with the leadership of the SSPX. Specifically, he said the following:

"Please accept that I reject the term "ecumenism ad intra." The bishops, priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics. It is Archbishop Lefebrve who has undertaken an illicit Episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics.

Again, it bears repeating. The president of the PCED, Cardinal Castrillón has repeatedly stated in at least five separate public interviews in Catholic and secular media that the lay faithful and priests of the SSPX are not schismatics nor in formal schism.

[3] See http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mershon/051212 on the SSPX and the post-Conciliar ecclesiology of "degrees of Communion" and "partial" and "full" communion.

[4] See the January 15, 2007 article in The Remnant (http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2007-0215-_bishop_bernard.htm). Late in 2006, The Society of St. Pius X sent a spiritual bouquet of 2.5 million rosaries from Catholic faithful around the world to the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI.

[5] http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

Gaudium et Spes, The Second Vatican Council's document on the Pastoral Constitution of the Role of the Church in the Modern World:

4. In every age, the church carries the responsibility of reading the signs of the times and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel, if it is to carry out its task. In language intelligible to every generation, it should be able to answer the ever recurring questions which people ask about the meaning of this present life and of the life to come, and how one is related to the other. We must be aware of and understand the aspirations, the yearnings, and the often dramatic features of the world in which we live.

[6] In a February interview for the Argentinian Panorama Católico Internacional and first appearing in El Catolicismo, the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Bogotá, Colombia, while explaining the mission of the PCED, Cardinal Castrillón said, "We take care of those who did not wish to follow Archbishop Lefebvre — which is not exactly a schism."

And further, in explaining the current status of the SSPX, Cardinal Castrillón said, "The Saint Pius X associations are in a process of reinsertion with permanent visits and a correspondence which asks for the ancient rite." He added, "They are 500 priests and 600,000 faithful, a growing number, with monasteries and seminaries, some of them full."

"Regarding the faithful who sympathise with the SSPX, we must insist that a) we are dealing with Catholic faithful who — provided they have performed no explicit actions — in no way wish to leave the Roman Catholic Church; b) attending Masses celebrated by priests of the SSPX is not in itself a delict and does not bring about excommunication; c) only those of the faithful who see the SSPX as the only true church, and who make this visible externally, incur the penalty of excommunication; d) it is consequently not at all appropriate to regard as non-Catholic the children baptised in the chapels of the SSPX, and to treat their marriages to another Catholic as mixed marriages; e) when baptism by a priest of the SSPX is attested in writing and the parents of the newly baptised do not see the SSPX as the only true church, then this attestation suffices for registration of the baptism in the Liber Baptizatorum of the parish of baptism, under the running number 0. On the basis of this registration, a baptismal certificate can be issued.

"The earlier edict concerning marriage to a Catholic who was baptised in an SSPX chapel (see below) is to be applied only if the Catholic thus baptised sees in the SSPX the only true church and who makes this visible externally.

"In order to prevent misunderstandings, the Archiepiscopal Chancery Office will examine each case individually."

Perhaps the most interesting nugget emanating from this PCED official communiqué is this apparent further updated interpretation and clarification of the original meaning from the Ecclesia Dei Adflicta document of this sentence: "Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law."

I should make clear to readers that I am no canon lawyer and have no canonical education nor training. However, it seems evident that the official Salzburg communiqué further clarifies and defines the canonical meaning of "formal adherence to the schism," which of course, the PCED president admits is no longer truly a formal schism.

This "adhering to the schism" would include only Catholics who hold as a belief that "only those of the faithful who see the SSPX as the only true church, and who make this visible externally, incur the penalty of excommunication," as stated by the PCED.

In other words, if a Catholic makes visible in his writings or in his external verbal speech, that he adheres to extra SSPX nulla salus at the exclusion of the rest of the visible Church, or perhaps parades around in public with a placard on his body demonstrating in the streets stating the same, then he is indeed schismatic and incurs excommunication.

The objective juridical penalties incurred by the priests and bishops of the SSPX are of a different magnitude and canonical stature, so it is difficult to simply apply this directive to them. However, it can be reasonably concluded that the vast majority of priests and bishops of the SSPX do not adhere to extra SSPX nulla salus as a dogma of Faith, which would incur the penalty of excommunication and formal schism.

[9] http://www.latin-mass-society.org/2004/hoyospraise.html Originally appeared in the Summer 2003 issue of Latin Mass Magazine.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Mershon is a commentator on cultural issues from a classical Catholic perspective. His trade is in media relations, and his vocation is as a husband to his beloved wife Tracey and father to his six living children. He attempts to assist his family and himself in attaining eternal salvation through frequent attendance at the Traditional Latin rite of Mass, homeschooling, and building Catholic culture in the buckle of the Bible Belt of Greenville, South Carolina.

It remains to be seen what SSPX members will do.

But since I haven’t seen any of them running to the 1962 Rite Mass offered in Milwaukee (regularly, since ~1986,) I suspect that they’re not too interested in unity.

The Church can open the door.

But the Church cannot drag people in...

Oh yeah! :-) I'll never forget the one time I was running an errand for my job, and while I was driving the company van, the original piece of music came on (which is used heavily in the cartoon), and I couldn't stop laughing, because the cartoon was running in my mind along with the music.

The late and great Michael Davies was a Looney Tunes fan, so that's something we have in common with him. ;-)

Have you got any document in whuch either John Paul II or Benedict XVI reversed or modified in any way John Paul II's definitive excommunication of the bishops and adherents of SSPX or reversed the ruling that SSPX is in schism??? I did not think so. If it ever does happen, I shall surely accept papal authority. Meanwhile, NOTHING by Dario Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos, by Monsignor Perle (who is less supportive of the excommunicated SSPX schismatics than you suggest but what else is new?) or by Mershon, by the paleo and pro-schismatic Remnant or by others who sympathize with the poor excommunicated schismatics (poor, poor insolent taste-offended babies suffering under those mean old popes!!!) will mean a thing to those who obey papal authority. None of these subordinate transgressors have any authority whatsoever to reverse or modify papal rulings. When any of them get to override the power of the keys, I feel sure that God will let them know. This is just one more Mershon pro-schismatic propaganda piece to mislead the actual Catholic faithful.

While Fr. Newman is wrong as to the acceptability of attendance at SSPX Masses, you also fail to note that contributions by actual Catholics are limited to defraying the actual costsof the Masses. Eastern Orthodox Masses are also valid despite the Eastern Orthodox being in schism from Rome.

Mershon: I wonder how a priest serves in SSPX without becoming an excommunicated SSPX adherent. When I confess my sins, I promise to avoid the near occasion of sin, how about you and the SSPXers? Without territorial faculties, do SSPX schismatic priests enjoy an ordinary right to hear confessions? When the schismatics and their excommunicated ringleaders in ecclesiastical crime reject papal authority as they have, how do they obtain territorial faculties? Just asking!

Mershon: If and when the excmmunications are lifted, it will have to be by papal authority. I have no problem with papal authority. That problem is the problem of the excommunicates schismatics.

BTW, were you fired by the Wanderer for all those (so far) inaccurate presumptions that B-XVI would be restoring the SSPX excommunicated schismatics any day now endlessly repeated in your writings over a period of a couple of years???? If even the Remnant some day bids you farewell, will you then turn to the SSPX agitprop organ The Angelus????

On behalf of the grammar police, that is "conniption" and not kinniption." You are a somewhat professional writer and spell-check should be your friend.

Additionally, the opponents of SSPX here are those who obey papal authority (as in Ecclesia Dei of JP II). The SSPX love slaves are the ones who yearn for such insolent antiCatholic trash as Fellay, Williamson and especially de Mallerais and have no problem with gross insolence, insubordination and grand theft ecclesiastical as are the hallmarks of the taste-offended schismatic excommunicati.

Finally, if you reference me, have the guts to ping me and not to hide behind the barn scribbling anti-Catholic graffiti. Such pinging is common courtesy. AND Tax-chick's newborns have more of a grasp of Catholicism than you do.

Tax-chick's newborns have more of a grasp of Catholicism than you do.

The babies are quite holy, of course, but as soon as they develop some cognition they get weird. Tom used to run into the kitchen and beat his head on the linoleum every time we made the Sign of the Cross, and Bill would put rosaries down the ventilation registers.

Whether or not everyone in the SSPX is in schism, their mean-spirited criticisms of the Pope and their rejection of his authority, in certain areas, are problematic, as is their rejection of the Second Vatican Council. Catholics who go to SSPX Masses risk being led into error by a group that is NOT in communion with the Church.

Moreover, now that the motu proprio has been issued, there is NO excuse for any Catholic to go SSPX chapels. I frankly don’t care if the SSPX ever reconciles with the Church but it would clearly be in their best interests to do so since the motu proprio will reduce their membership as people leave their chapels and return to the Church. Within a generation, the SSPX will be completely irrelevant.

I would agree if it was really about the Mass but it is about control and being their own authority while laughing in the face of authority. Many of them believe that they have it right while everyone else has it wrong.

The Latin Mass will not appease them, many of them think they are special and have special knowledge and intelligence that the average Catholic cannot fathom. They believe the pope issued the Motu Proprio just for them and they sneer in his face. They insist that he must jump through even more hoops to please them. They call him a Modernist who doesn't understand.

I for one am impatient with them and avoid them at every opportunity.

It will reappear since there are already people who are making arrangements for it. A few priests in the Diocese of Cleveland have said that they will celebrate the Mass. Also, my son attends the University of Notre Dame and he says that campus ministry has responded favorably to a request by students to have Tridentine Masses said on campus. Clearly, this excuse is not going to be around much longer and soon the SSPX will be nothing but an unhappy memory.

500 priests serving Catholic faithful won’t “go away” any time soon.

The theological formation of any Novus Ordo seminary, including the ones in Rome, pales in comparison to the semainary education and spiritual formation of the FSSP, the Institute of Christ the King, the Institute of Good Shepherd, and yes, the Society of St. Pius X.

Maybe those of you predicting the demise of the SSPX haven’t been following this close enough. The SSPX requested that the Pope free the Traditional Latin Mass for the entire Church. This was one of their requests—for the good of the entire Church.

The fact that some younger diocesan priests are going to be celebrating the Traditional Mass is a good thing. Who do you think is going to train them?

Angelus Press sold 1,100 of their 1962 missals last month alone. They had requests from 250 priests for their Latin Mass training DVD. They have been training priests in offering the TLM for months now—diocesan priests who come to them.

Nope. The SSPX “going away” is a pipe dream. Thankfully, Pope Benedict is intent in solving the canonical difficulties and then you guys can complain about them being in “full communion”.

While the motu proprio satisfies one of the demands of the SSPX, it certainly does not satisfy the rest of them. Their rejection of the Second Vatican Council and their rejection of papal authority in certain matters remain stumbling blocks to any reconciliation of that group with the Church.

As to your claim that priests will have to turn to the SSPX for training in how to say the Tridentine Mass, well, that remains to be seen. It is more likely that they will go to priest who belong to traditionalist orders that are in communion with the Church, such as the FSSP or the Institute of Christ the King.

Frankly, I can’t envision the return of such a self-righteous, self-important group like the SSPX to the Church. Their own pride would prevent it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.