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

Una Voce ^ | January 18, 2003 | Msgr. Arthur B. Calkins

[ThomasMore]

Excellent post. Thanks patent!

TM

[Catholicguy]

I also note that the site references the work of the former Satanist, Pete Vere.

<> One of my smart, non-injun, friends pointed out to me that Vere's progression was from Satanism ==> Christianity ==> SSPX Schism ==> Unity with Pope in Worship, Doctrine, Authority.

When one abandons Satanism and renounces their past and makes it, through various stages, to Union with the Vicar of Christ in the fullness of truth in the Church Jesus established, isn't that worthy of praise rather than dismissiveness?<>

[ultima ratio]

"The Society itself preaches this very separation, it is its reason for being."

Untrue. It's reason for being is to adhere to Catholic Tradition. From the Society's view, it never left anything and thus never separated from anything. Rome makes this accusation, not the SSPX. In fact,it has made no changes in its teachings or practices throughout its existence.

[ultima ratio]

Can. 751 . . . . Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

But "withdrawal of submission" is not the same as disobedience. One can disobey in a particular instance, but not withdraw submission to the papacy. If a faithful Catholic is ordered by the Pope to kill someone innocent, he should disobey--but he is not withdrawing submission to the Pontiff by so doing. The command would have been improper, since it would require disobedience to the law of God which obviously supercedes papal authority.

So also in the case of Archbishop Lefebvre. No pope may command what would have destroyed Catholic Tradition. The office of the papacy exists, in fact, to do the very opposite! So Archbishop Lefebvre was right to disobey and never incurred the offense of schism. He intended no opposition to the papacy itself by his disobedience.

Notice how the charge of schism has never been applied to the Chinese bishops who have likewise disobeyed the Pope and consecrated priests illicitly. Yet the Chinese, unlike Archbishop Lefebvre, actually intend to set up a parallel church and rob legitimate bishops of their jurisdictions. They not only intend this, they broadcast it publicly while Rome pretends to look the other way. In other words, the Chinese have openly declared their schism by their very actions.

The SSPX never did anything remotely comparable. The Archbishop simply disobeyed a papal command he considered in violation of the faith. Even if he was wrong, he acted in good conscience and in a way provided for in Canon Law itself under the provision of the State of Necessity. No parallel church was set up and no one was robbed of any jurisdiction.

If people were honest, they would recognize that history has proven the Archbishop right and the Pope wrong. The Church was, in fact, in crisis--just as Lefebre said. He was right to feel alarm at the destruction of Catholic Tradition--something this Pope seems unworried about. But people are not honest. They would rather deny the obvious than surrender a cherished grudge.

[ultima ratio]

"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."

You talk about class? Read the above post of yours. It is totally ad hominem, the epitome of vulgarity in response to a pretty innocuous comment. The one with the thin skin is you.

[ultima ratio]

<> Doesn't the SSPX tell their supporters that attending the Missa Normativa does not satisfy the Sunday requirement?<>

Yup. On absolutely solid theological and moral grounds. The Society follows Trent, not Bugnini.

[patent]

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.

I ask you again, where is your evidence to make these assertions against a very large number of people?

Good grief. You won’t even answer the questions, and you whine about proof? Answer them. Your answers will be evidence enough and you know it.

How many SSPX chapels have you been to?

Far too many, though I do not have a count for you.

How many traditional Catholics have you queried on this topic?

I have known hundreds of traditional Catholics well, not mentioning those I have known in passing. Nearly every one of them prefers to avoid Novus Ordo Catholics. It is amazing. Old friends, thinking you are still SSPX, greet you with great joy. Then they learn you are attending an indult, or shudder, a Novus Ordo, and the cold shoulders come out nearly instantly. Not everyone is like this, but too many are.

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.

You mean like Maxmillian’s comment the other day that 99% of "Novus Ordo" Catholics are in a state of mortal sin? Somehow I doubt you objected to that.

You know full well that many Society adherents prefer to keep some degree of separation between themselves and those of us who attend the Novus Ordo. To deny this is to deny the Society itself exists, as it is the whole basis for the organization.

Dominus Vobiscum

patent  +AMDG

[patent]

You are as arrogant as Black Elk.

Why thank you! ;-)

[patent]

<> Doesn't the SSPX tell their supporters that attending the Missa Normativa does not satisfy the Sunday requirement?<>

Yup. On absolutely solid theological and moral grounds. The Society follows Trent, not Bugnini.

So did the Old Catholics. They followed Trent, not Vatican I. They were, are, and at this point likely always will be,

SCHISMATIC.

So Archbishop Lefebvre was right to disobey and never incurred the offense of schism.

Whatever. You’ve admitted otherwise in the past. He was excommunicated, and he was schismatic. Get over it.

Notice how the charge of schism has never been applied to the Chinese bishops who have likewise disobeyed the Pope and consecrated priests illicitly.

It depends on the Bishop. As we’ve discussed before, this situation is a great deal more complex than your simplification.

patent  +AMDG

[Gophack]

I'm not going to get in the middle of this debate, but suffice it to say that the monsignour I was refering to is a well-respected, very, very conservative, pro-life leader who I completely trust. He's not at my parish, but one I attend on occasion, and he's willing to stand up to liberal Catholics and liberal Catholic politicians.

The fact is, if you are not in communion with the Pope, you are not in communion with the Church, and if you're not in communion with the Church, you are not a Catholic in good standing. You might disagree with some of the things that are happening, and some we may even agree on, but the fact is the Roman Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago, Pope John Paul II is the successor to St. Peter, and the gates of Hell will not prevail. We only answer for ourselves and our actions, our leaders will answer for theirs. But to split off from the church we are, in fact, not following the Holy Spirit, but man.

God bless.

[Aloysius]

Good grief. You won’t even answer the questions, and you whine about proof? Answer them. Your answers will be evidence enough and you know it.

What questions are you referring to? I believe you have confused me with another poster.

[Aloysius]

You mean like Maxmillian’s comment the other day that 99% of "Novus Ordo" Catholics are in a state of mortal sin? Somehow I doubt you objected to that.

I disagree with Maximillian's statement. I think he's a little high. Most of the old ladies that go to the Novus Ordo are probably not in a state of mortal sin. My guess is that they account for more than 1% of those who attend the Novus Ordo. It seems that the correct number should be about 90%.

[Catholicguy]

I disagree with Maximillian's statement. I think he's a little high.

<> I too thought I detected evidence of an intoxicant-induced estimation.<>

Most of the old ladies that go to the Novus Ordo are probably not in a state of mortal sin.

<>"It's the little ol' Lady from St. Edwina's...Pray, Granny....Obey, Granny...Pray, Pay and Obey....<>

My guess is that they account for more than 1% of those who attend the Novus Ordo. It seems that the correct number should be about 90%

<> Cool. I am a mortal sinner for hanging with the Pope.<>

[Aloysius]

Cool. I am a mortal sinner for hanging with the Pope.

Ask your friend. He seems to think he knows the motives of many, many people he has never met.

[patent]

Good grief. You won’t even answer the questions, and you whine about proof? Answer them. Your answers will be evidence enough and you know it.

What questions are you referring to? I believe you have confused me with another poster.

Not likely. See the questions in Post 30, directed to you:

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.

So, do you associate with Novus Ordo Catholics? Do you attend pro-life marches with them? Go to their Church? Or do you prefer to hold yourself entirely separate when it comes to Church life? Do you pay any obedience at all to your local Ordinary? Do you do anything with respect to him, such as even responding to the his annual appeal? I strongly doubt it, but you are free to answer as you will.

AS to the devotion to the 1962 missal, I would be more than a bit surprised to see you answer in the negative, but do you have a preference for it over the more recent missals?

You mean like Maxmillian’s comment the other day that 99% of "Novus Ordo" Catholics are in a state of mortal sin? Somehow I doubt you objected to that.

I disagree with Maximillian's statement. I think he's a little high. Most of the old ladies that go to the Novus Ordo are probably not in a state of mortal sin. My guess is that they account for more than 1% of those who attend the Novus Ordo. It seems that the correct number should be about 90%.

Hypocrite.

You complain about my rather innocuous comment that “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.” You complain that I should “please refrain from these types of judgments.” Then you go and judge the souls of 90% of 1 billion Catholics to be in a state of mortal sin.

Hypocrite.

patent  +AMDG

[patent]

Cool. I am a mortal sinner for hanging with the Pope.

Ask your friend. He seems to think he knows the motives of many, many people he has never met.

You have more than one upped me in that category. I hardly judge whether the Society adherents are in states of mortal sin or not. You apparently do.

patent  +AMDG

[ultima ratio]

You accept this monsignor's word as if it were divine revelation. You must be a very young person to offer such blind trust to someone so badly informed. I'm sure he's a nice man and his heart is in the right place. But he's simply flat-out wrong. You then say, "The fact is, if you are not in communion with the Pope, you are not in communion with the Church, and if you're not in communion with the Church, you are not a Catholic in good standing."

There is no "fact is" in this case. Even Msgr. Perl in his letter above, admits Catholics may attend SSPX Masses which are valid and which allow the faithful to fulfill their Sunday obligation. He says it depends on whether the Catholics involved intend to express separation from communion with the Pope or not. I don't intend any such thing--so obviously you are talking through your hat.

Not that I'm a big fan of Msgr. Perle, but the man is playing with a lousy hand. He knows the SSPX is not in schism--but he can't come right out and say so without people scratching their heads and wondering what all the fuss was about back in 1988 when Rome tried to dismantle Catholic Tradition once and for all. So he waffles and dreams up states of intention that never existed in anybody's mind. This is comparable to an earlier claim that the faithful who attended SSPX Mass ran some kind of danger of developing a "schismatic mentality".

[Aloysius]

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.

That's not a question. Try again, liar.

[Aloysius]

You complain about my rather innocuous comment that “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.” You complain that I should “please refrain from these types of judgments.” Then you go and judge the souls of 90% of 1 billion Catholics to be in a state of mortal sin.

Hypocrite.

I said it seems, to be the case (just like you seem to know all of the motives of those who attend SSPX masses). Seems you can't take a dose of your own medicine, can you?