Posted on 01/27/2003 11:33:33 AM PST by Aloysius
Una Voce America has received a communication from the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission, concerning an article which appeared in The Remnant newspaper and various websites. At the request of the Commission, we are publishing it below.
Pontificia Commissio "Ecclesia Dei" January 18, 2003
Greetings in the Hearts of Jesus & Mary! There have been several inquiries about our letter of 27 September 2002. In order to clarify things, Msgr. Perl has made the following response.
Oremus pro invicem.
In cordibus Jesu et Mariæ, Msgr. Arthur B. Calkins
Msgr. Camille Perl's response:
Unfortunately, as you will understand, we have no way of controlling what is done with our letters by their recipients. Our letter of 27 September 2002, which was evidently cited in The Remnant and on various websites, was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us. What was presented in the public forum is an abbreviated version of that letter which omits much of our pastoral counsel. Since a truncated form of this letter has now become public, we judge it appropriate to present the larger context of our response.
In a previous letter to the same correspondent we had already indicated the canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X which we will summarize briefly here.
1.) The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.
2.) Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church.
Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was "Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass" and our response was:
"1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X."
His second question was "Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass" and we responded stating:
"2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin."
His third question was: "Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection a Pius X Mass" to which we responded:
"3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified."
Further, the correspondent took the Commission to task for not doing its job properly and we responded thus:
"This Pontifical Commission does not have the authority to coerce Bishops to provide for the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. Nonetheless, we are frequently in contact with Bishops and do all that we can to see that this provision is made. However, this provision also depends on the number of people who desire the 'traditional' Mass, their motives and the availability of priests who can celebrate it.
"You also state in your letter that the Holy Father has given you a 'right' to the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. This is not correct. It is true that he has asked his brother Bishops to be generous in providing for the celebration of this Mass, but he has not stated that it is a 'right'. Presently it constitutes an exception to the Church's law and may be granted when the local Bishop judges it to be a valid pastoral service and when he has the priests who are available to celebrate it. Every Catholic has a right to the sacraments (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 843), but he does not have a right to them according to the rite of his choice."
We hope that this puts in a clearer light the letter about which you asked us.
With prayerful best wishes for this New Year of Our Lord 2003, I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ, Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl Secretary
Okay, now I am really boggled. Why would participation in a Mass said by an excommunicated Priest not be sinful? What is the point of this excommunication if not to red alert the laity? And why would the collection be justified? This is as clear as mud.
DC, join the club. These letters are classic doublespeak, complete oxymorons in and of themselves. They are not designed to clear up any issues but are simply weak attempts to control a movement which is rapidly taking on a life of its own. If the hierarchy had its way, there would be no Traditional Mass. This is a movement driven by the Holy Spirit working through the laity. If not for that 'pesky' Archbishop LeFebvre, Catholics today would have no memory of our Mass of Ages. There would be no SSPX or FSSP. The Archbishop's excommunication was bogus and everyone knows it. He was 'excommunicated' for being too Catholic. He refused to submit to modernism and was 'punished'. Fortunately, just a few of the hierarchy remember something taught about eternal damnation and blasphemy so they stop short of declaring the Traditional Mass invalid. They aren't feeling too lucky these days. Restoration is at hand.
The question is rapidly becoming not "did Archbishop LeFebvre schism?" but "WHO schismed back the 1960s?" Schism by its nature implies a deviation from Catholic teaching and tradition. The Archbishop elected to stay with the status quo, the Novus Ordos elected to go their own way. Now just exactly WHO schismed?
LOL. You disagree? I assume you would admit that you feel the second part, the desire to “participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion.” I would think nearly everyone, with at most a couple isolated exceptions, that attends an SSPX Mass would feel this one.Most folks seem to have both intentions to some degree,Do you have evidence to support this assertion?
As to the first part, I suppose it could depend on your reading. Most attending the SSPX don’t explicitly seem to desire separation from the Pope, but they usually do seem to desire separation from Novus Ordo attending Catholics. The Society itself preaches this very separation, it is its reason for being. If you disagree, let me know. Also, please let me know if you prefer to be separate from your local Ordinary, and from many of the local Novus Ordo attending Catholics, and if you do have a devotion or preference for attending Mass with the 1962 missal over attending the Novus Ordo.
Oh, and on the odd chance that you need more proof regarding those who prefer a separation from us poor Novus Ordo Catholics, take a look at the posts to this thread, I can’t imagine this point would be further disputed.
Nice theory, but of course in practice the Society separates itself from those in communion with the Pope as well. Its own Bishops, priests, chapels, etc. No overlap, regardless of where the nearby parishes come down on the issues mentioned: “confession, EEM's, the General Instruction and such.”Rather they object to the modernisms and other heretical practices that abound in many places that claim to be in communnion with Rome but who ignore directives from Rome on such critical areas as confession, EEM's, the General Instruction and such.Well said. Separating oneself from the actions of modernism is not the same as separating oneself from those who are in Communion with the Holy Father.
Dominus Vobiscum
patent +AMDG
May I suggest you misread Msrg. Perl?You certainly may, but I will disagree and suggest you are misreading him.
You read it as requiring a separation from both individuals, I disagree. Clearly, if you were to desire to separate yourself from the Roman Pontiff, it would not matter if you were to desire separation from those in communion with him. You would still be schismatic. But to read it your way would be to imply that desiring separation from the Roman Pontiff would not be sinful because you do not also desire separation from those in communion with him. This would be a theological absurdity. Desiring separation from the Pope is by itself sufficiently sinful.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.Very few of the good people I have met at SSPX services desire to seperate themselves from BOTH His Holiness and all in communion with him. [patent’s note: You add the word “all”, I do not adopt it as it was not in the original quotation.]
I think we can assume that the commission did not intend a theological absurdity. Thus, and I think you would have to admit this, insofar as the “and” does not require a desire to separate from both Pope and those in communion with him, at most a desire to separate from the Pope is sufficient.
What I expect you may dispute, however, is whether that “and”’s meaning is applied consistently, and if separation from those in communion with the Pope is in itself also sinful.
However, the only way to impart consistency to the passages, not to mention agree with basic Catholic theology, is to apply that “and” consistently. Both canon law and the catechism give nearly the same passage, but use the term “or” instead of “and.”
From Canon law:
Can. 751 . . . . Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.From the Catechism:
2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."Obviously your reading of that passage contradicts the official teachings that use the very same phrases. As we both agree, schism is a sin, the Church law teaches it is committed by refusing communion with the members of the Church subject to the Pope, and therefore your contention that one needs to “desire to separate themselves from BOTH His Holiness and all in communion with him” is false. Either or is sufficient.
This only makes sense, as the Church is the Body of Christ. Its members are members of that heavenly Body. To desire to be separate from other members of that body is unthinkable. Basic theology, it is sinful.
The reading of those like ultima, that one merely claims one does not desire to be schismatic, and by that claim is somehow not schismatic, is absurd. It sucks all meaning from the word.
I smell a softening of Rome's attitude.Rome is not the problem. It offered to remove the excommunications and grant the Society an Apostolic Administration, something the Society admitted met all its needs. Rome will declare the schism over in a heartbeat if the Society will return. It is the Society that refuse to do so.
Dominus Vobiscum
patent +AMDG
I agree his words were chosen carefully, and I take offense at them.That is rich. The words of mine you quote are well explained in my post to Narses. For you, of all people, to take offense to these rather plain words: “Most folks seem to have both intentions to some degree” is hypocritical on so many levels. First, those words are hardly a personal attack of the sort you so frequently engage in. You call people like me “neos” “neo catholics” “protestants” and the like. You refer on this thread to me as speaking with a “lawyer forked-tongue.” You are as bitter and insulting as they come, and you have little moral ground to whine about “offense” to your poor delicate little ears.
Try to act with a tiny little bit of class, then your whine will at least not grate so pathetically.
Moreover, your one of those whose conduct proves my point. By your conduct on so many threads you clearly indicate a desire for a separation from Catholics who are clearly in communion with the Pope. This proves the very point that you objected to as “offensive,” that you have both a devotion to the 1962 missal, and the desire to be separate from Catholics in communion with the Pope who don’t attend the 1962 Rite Mass.
No wonder you find the phrase offensive. It is you.
patent +AMDG
There you go again, Oh Omniscient One.
I ask you again, where is your evidence to make these assertions against a very large number of people? How many SSPX chapels have you been to? How many traditional Catholics have you queried on this topic?
Until you demonstrate some basis for your broad-brush assertions, please refrain from these types of judgements. I suspect you would not want others to make similar assertions towards the faithful who attend Novus Ordo Masses.
<> Law/Schmaw. Antinomianism, Baby. Roma Locuta est? Please...Winona Locuta est..<>
2.) Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church.
<> Mick Jagger was wrong. You CAN always get what you want - in the schism.
Keep writing the letters, selecting out the quotes, matching quotes from one letter against a Papal Decree. You can ALWAYS find some face-saving phrase, passage, quote, interpretation ect to justify severing Unity with the Pope and all those nasty, duped, lied-to, idiots who maintain Unity.
After all, that IS what it means to be Catholic.
"...My Will be done, in the schism as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily Canonical interpretation and forgive the Pope his transgressions as we embrace those that transgress against him, and lead us not into cooperation but deliver us from the evil N.O. - for thine is the Legalistic Kingdom, the Will to Power, and the Glory of "traditionalism" forever.<>
<> It cites Ecclesia Dei and the Code of Canon Law. The only 'crackpot" it cites is Rev Scott, and that was a charitable thing to do as the Rev Scott was saying some crackpot things that needed to be confronted and proved lies<>
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.