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

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

[Aloysius]

I feel sorry for the SSPX'ers who commit mortal sin though, because they are not able to make a valid confession unless they go to a priest who has been given jurisdiction and faculties by the local ordinary.

They don't need jurisdiction when the local ordinary is an apostate.

[Aloysius]

Correction:

They don't need jurisdiction from the local ordinary when that local ordinary is an apostate.

[Tantumergo]

"They don't need jurisdiction when the local ordinary is an apostate."

Can you support this assertion with any citations from any code of Canon Law, or Holy Tradition??

Granted that there may well be local ordinaries who are apostate, but that still does not diminish their ability to confer jurisdiction until they are declared to be apostate and deposed by the only competent authority.

Jurisdiction is always required in order to validly celebrate the sacrament of Penance. Without jurisdiction, how can sinners be reconciled to the Church? It is impossible for someone whose own status with respect to the Church is at best irregular, to act in the name of Christ AND His Church in order to reconcile penitents.

He is simply unable to act in the name of the Church.

[Aloysius]

Sedevacantism or schism are the only logical outcomes of denying the validity of the Missa Normativa

None of the SSPX priests I know deny the validity of the Novus Ordo.

[Aloysius]

Can you support this assertion with any citations from any code of Canon Law, or Holy Tradition??

Jurisdiction is ordinarily given by mandate from the Pope or diocesan Bishop, or perhaps delegated by the parish priest. Extraordinarily, however, the Church supplies jurisdiction without passing by the constituted authorities. This is foreseen in the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

When the faithful think the priest has a jurisdiction which he does not have (canon 144),

when there is a probable and positive doubt that the priest has jurisdiction (canon 144),

when a priest inadvertently continues to hear confessions once his faculties have expired (canon 142, §2), and

when the penitent is in danger of death (and then even if the priest is laicised or an apostate, even though a Catholic priest is at hand) (canons 976, 1335).

[Scupoli]

Show me where in Tradition or the teachings of Catholic Faith that refusal of obedience to the Successor of Peter is mandated, especially when you have been warned that refusal of obedience will result in your excommunication from the Catholic Church.

Limits on Papal Authority

POPE ST. GREGORY I, "THE GREAT" (590-604)

The Eucharistic Canon remained unchanged from Apostolic times to the present day, with the exception of one short clause inserted by St. Gregory the Great. The phrase Pope Gregory added was "diesque nostros in tua pace disponas" [may you order our days in Thy peace] to the Hanc Igitur of the Canon. The Romans were outraged at this act and threatened to kill the pope because he had dared to touch the Sacred Liturgy. The Mass was affirmed to be complete and unchangeable. Since that time no pope has dared to change the Ordo of the Traditional Latin Mass, until in 1962 Pope John XXIII added "beati Ioseph, eiusdem Virginis Sponsi" [of blessed Joseph, Spouse of the same Virgin] to the Communicantes of the Canon.

This same Pope John XXIII implored on his deathbed to stop the Council which he had convened.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, O.P. (1225-1274)

"Hold firmly that your faith is identical with that of the ancients. Deny this, and you dissolve the unity of the Church."

"There being an imminent danger for the Faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glossa of St. Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2.14), 'St. Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if sometime they stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects....'

"Some say that fraternal correction does not extend to the prelates either because man should not raise his voice against heaven, or because the prelates are easily scandalized if corrected by their subjects. However, this does not happen, since when they sin, the prelates do not represent heaven, and, therefore, must be corrected. And those who correct them charitably do not raise their voices against them, but in their favour, since the admonishment is for their own sake .... For this reason, according to other [authors], the precept of fraternal correction extends also to the prelates, so that they may be corrected by their subjects." (IV Sententiarum, D. 19, Q. 2, A. 2)

ST. CATHERINE OF SIENA (1347-1380)

Alas, Most Holy Father! At times, obedience to you leads to eternal damnation. (To Pope Gregory IX, 1376.)

JUAN CARDINAL DE TORQUEMADA O.P. (1388-1468)

"Although it clearly follows from the circumstances that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not,... it is said in the Acts of the Apostles: 'One ought to obey God rather than man'; therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over despiciendus)...." (Summa de Ecclesia [1489], founded upon the doctrine formulated by the Council of Florence and later re-asserted by Pope Eugenius IV and Pope Pius IV)

ST. GIACOMO TOMMASO DE VIO GAETANI O.P. (1469-1534)

"Where the Pope is, there is also the Church" holds true only when the Pope acts and behaves as the Pope, because Peter "is subject to the duties of the Office"; otherwise, "neither is the Church in him, nor is he in the Church." (Apud St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, Q. 39, Art. 1, ad 6)

POPE ADRIAN VI (1522-1523)

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can error even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1316-1334)."

ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE, S.J. (1542-1621)

"Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed." (De Romano Pontifice, Lib. II, Ch. 29)

FRANCISCO SUAREZ, S.J. (1548-1617)

"If [the pope] gives an order contrary to right customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defence." (De Fide, Disp. X, Sec. VI, N. 16)

VENERABLE POPE PIUS IX (1846-1878)

"If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him."

FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF THE VATICAN (1869-1870)

"For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles."

[ultima ratio]

You are wrong. The conflict is not between Rome and SSPX. The conflict is between Rome and Catholic Tradition. The Pope is not greater than the Tradition which embodies the deposit of faith. His office exists to protect Tradition, not to dismantle it. If forced to choose between the Pope and the whole of Catholic Tradition, therefore, we must choose Tradition above all else. In this regard, SSPX believes nothing, practices nothing, that has not always been believed and practiced, going back to apostolic times. It is Rome which is full of novelties--which have led only to one disaster after another for the past forty years. It is Rome which opposes past popes and councils in the name of its new religion.

[Scupoli]

In many respects he behaved no differently than the women who were "ordained" in Austria recently. They thought they were doing the right thing for the Church they loved as well!

Completely different situation. Those women acted outside of Traditional Catholic teaching. LeFebvre was punished for following it.

Show me the screaming masses crying "Le..Feb..vre, we love you!" It doesn't happen. Far from it."

Of course it doesn't happen - he's dead!

He's been dead for a little over 10 years. It never happened when he was alive.

[Scupoli]

Quite right - this is what was defined in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church at Vatican II.

It was defined long before Vatican II. See post #87. There was a Church before Vatican II.

I don't believe I have ever asserted that the Pope can re-invent Tradition.

Fair enough. I have not seen you say this. I was making a general statement.

[ultima ratio]

So now besides being "sons of Satan" we are "sissies" and "fairies" and "epicene." I see.

And I have a description of you: "fruitcake"--as in, "nuttier than a".

[ultima ratio]

Not at all. A Mass must reflect the doctrines of the Church, not Protestant beliefs. The Novus Ordo does not do this. Therefore it is harmful to the faith and should be avoided at all costs.

[ultima ratio]

A state of necessity provides ample justification for priests of the SSPX to hear confession. Check Canon Law on this. There is far more danger going to a Novus Ordo priest who may or may not believe in the sacrament to begin with.

[ultima ratio]

But we don't worship Lefebvre at all--since we follow not him so much as the traditions of the Catholic Church as they have been believed and practiced for twenty centuries. That is what distinguishes us from pope-worshipers. You follow the Pope only because you believe in HIM, not in the faith, not in the ancient traditions he ignores. He could kiss the Talmud tomorrow and declare it is part of the New Testament, and you would all nod your heads and go along. You've already accepted worse.

[ultima ratio]

"Show me where in Tradition or the teachings of Catholic Faith that refusal of obedience to the Successor of Peter is mandated, especially when you have been warned that refusal of obedience will result in your excommunication from the Catholic Church."

Easy. I did so not too long ago when I cited Aquinas and Bellarmine--two of the most brilliant doctors of the Church--who warned we must disobey superiors who give improper commands which would harm the Church--even if it be the pope. These are very old teachings. Popes are not gods. They make mistakes. And they can do evil.

[narses]

You misread me, no doubt because I was insufficiently clear. The problem is those who APPEAR to be in communnion with Rome but who act in a fashion that is either heretical or schismatic. Hierarchs who engage in criminal behavior, sometimes public scandal, for example. Priests who abuse the Sacraments so badly that they are either invalid or likely so (and if in doubt, you have a moral obligation to seek out valid, even if "illicit" sacraments). They abound in some places and there can be no quarrel with that. Nor can there be any doubt that my friends in the SSPX have always accepted the normative Mass as valid when the form, matter and intent exist. The problem is that even the basic matter is sometimes abused (the honeyed "host" discussed here on this site) not to speak of the intent (when Fr. McBrien calls the Words of Consecration "hocus pocus", can one reasonably NOT question his intent?) or the form ("pro multis")? The ICEL has clearly failed, the hierarchy of the Church in America is substantially made of men who act against church and criminal law (look to the issue of confession or the "generous" application of the Indult or the two of three whose conduct vis-a-vis the pederasty issue is documented as against either canon or secular law) and heterodoxy is the general rule. Divorced and remarried women at the altar distributing the Host, reading the Word and acting as "pastoral ministers" while homosexual activists reign over "The Pink Palace" and "Notre Flame" seminaries are common.

There is a crisis my friend and the issues the SSPX raises are real. Do they themselves have problems? Oh my yes. Are they the whole Church? No. Are they part of the Church? According to Msgr. Perl they are, since I can satisfy my Sunday obligation by taking the Sacraments at their Mass. We live in dangerous and interesting times. Rather than attack as schismatic those who attend the Tridentine Mass, perhaps we ought to concentrate on our own sanctification and applaud those priests who help us, regardless of the intramural issues they have with the hierarchs.

[narses]

One local chapel with well over 7,000 communicants has one hour of confession weekly. They get a "general absolution" twice a year and are told that is sufficient. You wouldn't believe the number of divorced and remarried women in positions of authority there. Almost everyone takes communion at every Mass. You tell me.

[Scupoli]

Very well said.

[ninenot]

The conflict is not between Rome and SSPX. The conflict is between Rome and Catholic Tradition.

I will leave this remark to speak for itself. SSPX defines Tradition, and then chooses to limit the Legislator under its own definition.

Schism.