The SSPX (Jesus, priests, moral, reject, tradition)

[Scott1]

Letter by Msgr. Camille Perl Regarding Society of St. Pius X Masses
Una Voce America has received a communication from the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission (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), 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

Letter by Msgr. Perl regarding SSPX Masses

[Scott1]

In itself this act [of consecrating those four bishops] 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 [Code of Canon Law, 751]. In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for Bishops last June 17, Archbishop 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 [Cf. Code of Canon Law, 1382].

In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. 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 [Cf. Code of Canon Law, 1364].

APOSTOLIC LETTER
"ECCLESIA DEI"
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
JOHN PAUL II
GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO
Ecclesia Dei - John Paul II - Motu Proprio (2 July 1988)

[Te Deum]

QUESTION 11Wasn't Archbishop Lefebvre excommunicated for consecrating bishops unlawfully?

QUESTION 12Isn't the SSPX schismatic?

Was Archbishop Lefebvre (along with his co-consecrator and the four bishops whom he consecrated) excommunicated also for having done a “schismatic act” (as well as for consecrating without a pontifical mandate)?

No. A first argument to that is already given.

What, moreover, constitutes a schismatic act? Not the mere deed of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate. The 1983 Code of Canon Law itself lists this offense under Title 3 (abuse of ecclesiastical powers) and not under Title 1 (offenses against religion and the unity of the Church) of its penal section (Book 6).
Nor would it be a “schismatic act” to consecrate against the express wish of the Holy Father. That could amount to disobedience at most.* But disobedience does not amount to schism; schism requires that one not recognize the authority of the pope to command; disobedience consists in not obeying a command, whilst still acknowledging the authority of the one commanding. “The child who says ‘I won’t!’ to his mother does not deny that she is his mother” (Fr. Glover, in Is Tradition Excommunicated? p. 99).

*(But there is no disobedience, cf. An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, pp. 129-136, Cf. "The act of consecrating a bishop (without the pope's permission) is not itself a schismatic act," Cardinal Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, in La Repubblica, Oct. 7, 1988)

Now, Archbishop Lefebvre always recognized the pope’s authority (proved by his consultations with Rome for a solution to the current problems) and so does the SSPX. (See, for example, its support for Pope John Paul II’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis against women priests.) Consecrating a bishop without pontifical mandate would be a schismatic act if one pretended to confer not just the fullness of the priesthood but also jurisdiction, a governing power over a particular flock. Only the pope, who has universal jurisdiction over the whole Church, can appoint a pastor to a flock and empower him to govern it. But Archbishop Lefebvre never presumed to confer anything but the full priestly powers of Orders, and in no way did he grant any jurisdiction (which he himself did not have personally to give).

As for the faithful, threatened by Pope John Paul II himself with excommunication if they adhere formally to the schism (Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, July 2, 1988), do they indeed incur any excommunication for going to SSPX priests for the sacraments?
Not at all. The priests of the Society are neither excommunicated nor schismatics (Is Tradition Excommunicated? pp. 1-39). This being so, how could any of the faithful who approach them incur these penalties? Besides:

Excommunication is a penalty for those who commit certain crimes with full moral guilt, not a contagious disease! (Fr. Glover ibid., p. 100)

On May 1, 1991, Bishop Ferrario of Hawaii “excommunicated” certain Catholics of his diocese for attending Masses celebrated by priests of the SSPX, and receiving a bishop of the Society to confer the sacrament of Confirmation. Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, overturned this decision: From the examination of the case... it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned decree, are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the decree of May 1, 1991, lacks foundation and hence validity. (June 28, 1993)

The claimed excommunicated as an "automatic excommunication" but if the necessary criteria for such an excommunication are absent and an exception is present than the excommunication never happened.

Consecrating a bishop without pontifical mandate would be a schismatic act if one pretended to confer not just the fullness of the priesthood but also jurisdiction, a governing power over a particular flock. Only the pope, who has universal jurisdiction over the whole Church, can appoint a pastor to a flock and empower him to govern it. But Archbishop Lefebvre never presumed to confer anything but the full priestly powers of Orders, and in no way did he grant any jurisdiction (which he himself did not have personally to give).

As for the faithful, threatened by Pope John Paul II himself with excommunication if they adhere formally to the schism (Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, July 2, 1988), do they indeed incur any excommunication for going to SSPX priests for the sacraments?

[Scott1]

You can use the SSPX website... I'll use the Vatican.

[Scott1]

OK.... I've got more time than I thought... so I'll give TeDeum a bit more complete explaination on why the SSPX website is in error.

As to question 11:
Wasn't ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE excommunicated for consecrating bishops unlawfully?

The website cites "In Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, the pope repeated Cardinal Gantin’s accusation of schismatic mentality and threatened generalized excommunications" and then the reasons, per canon law, why this is wrong. They cite canon 1382 for "abuse of episcopal powers".... but in fact, John Paul cites Code of Canon Law, 751 as the reason for their excommunication, and then makes an after the fact reference to the warning from canon 1382:

Hence such disobedience—which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy—constitutes a schismatic act [Code of Canon Law, 751].In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning ..... [Cf. Code of Canon Law, 1382].

As to question 12: Isn't the SSPX schismatic?
Not all of them... just the Bishops.... but more importantly:
The Bishops have been excommunicated and the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are suspended from exercising their priestly functions.

The Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission made it clear in the above letter that they cannot recommend that Catholic lay faithful attend a SSPX Mass.

Hope that helps.

[Te Deum]

The Bishops have been excommunicated and the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are suspended from exercising their priestly functions.

This was never infallibly declared.

[Te Deum]

Originally Posted by Scott1

You can use the SSPX website... I'll use the Vatican.

If you are going to slander SSPX, go straight to their source. Let's read what they have to say so that we understand what they actually believe and why they believe it.

For those who truly want to learn about SSPX, read the book "Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre" by Michael Davies - it is fantastic and complete.

Also worth reading: Open Letter to Confused Catholics Index

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Te Deum