Thu 24th Apr 2014 | Last updated: Thu 24th Apr 2014 at 17:02pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

SSPX: we recognise the authority of the Pope

By on Thursday, 19 July 2012

Bishop Fellay, the society's superior general (CNS photo)

Bishop Fellay, the society's superior general (CNS photo)

The Society of St Pius X has said it must defend Church teaching from error but that it recognises the full authority of the Pope over the Church.

“As for all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council, which remain tainted with errors, and for the reforms derived from it,” the statement said, “the society can only continue to uphold the affirmations and teachings of the constant Magisterium of the Church.”

The statement from the society’s general chapter meeting, which ended on July 14, was posted in French, Italian, English, German and Spanish on the society’s website.

Chapter participants “determined and approved the necessary conditions” for an eventual, full reconciliation with the Vatican, it said. If the conditions are met, “an extraordinary chapter with deliberative vote will be convened”.

The website said the statement had been sent to the Vatican prior to publication.

Fr Federico Lombardi, Vatican spokesman, said the Vatican did not consider the statement to be “a formal response” by the SSPX to the last document it asked Bishop Bernard Fellay, the society’s superior general, to sign.

Because “we do not consider it – and it is not – a formal response”, Fr Lombardi said, the Vatican would not comment on the statement’s content.

“The Holy See has taken note of this declaration, but awaits the forthcoming official communication” of the society as its “dialogue with the Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’ continues,” he said. “Ecclesia Dei,” now led by US Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, is handling the discussions with the SSPX under the guidance of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The SSPX statement said members of the general chapter believe “the paramount duty of the society, in the service which it intends to offer to the Church, is to continue with God’s help to profess the Catholic faith in all its purity and integrity with a determination matching the intensity of the constant attacks to which this very faith is subject nowadays”.

Chapter members formally affirmed their faith in the Roman Catholic Church and its hierarchical structure in which “the supreme power of government over the universal Church belongs only to the Pope, vicar of Christ on earth.”

At the same time, members said they would continue to seek guidance from the “constant tradition of the Church” as they await “the day when an open and serious debate will be possible which may allow the return to tradition of the ecclesiastical authorities”.

Ending with a prayer, the statement asked Mary “to chase the enemies out from inside the Church”, saying some inside the Church “are trying to destroy it more radically than its enemies from outside”.

Pope Benedict XVI launched a new series of doctrinal discussions with the SSPX in 2009, lifting excommunications imposed on its four bishops, who were ordained in 1988 without papal approval, and expressing his hopes they would return to full communion with the Church.

As the discussions progressed, the Vatican gave SSPX leaders a “doctrinal preamble” to sign. The Vatican said the document, which has not been published, outlines principles and criteria necessary to guarantee fidelity to the Church and its teaching.

When it appeared Bishop Fellay was close to signing an agreement with the Vatican, internal tensions within the SSPX erupted. The statement from the general chapter said that during the July meeting, the SSPX leaders recovered their “profound unity”.

  • Boanerges

    “Recognise” is the right word: they acknowledge the existence of Papal authority – as far out at sea, a man might recognise a distant lighthouse: as a quaint and shimmering light on the horizon.

  • http://www.catholicyouthwork.com Catholic Youth Work

    So they recognise that the Pope has authority from Christ but they don’t want to accept it or put themselves under it? Ooooookay!?

  • teigitur

    We need them back so badly……..

  • MCarroll

    CYW,

    Once again you are clueless.

    They will start to clear up some of the liberal abominations that your lot have caused over the past few years i.e. taking the spiritual out of the Catholic Church so that there is no longer any mystery, awe and wonders that used to draw people to Christ within the Catholic Church.

    You lot should be hanging your heads in shame.

  • Sixupman

    SSPX have never ceased to recognise the papacy. Some covert Sedevacantists within The Society maybe.

    I recall one SSPX cleric berating the congregation and stating “we have the pope we have – live with it’.

    The Bishops’ Conferences have, de facto, created ‘National Churches’ and see themselves as of equal standing with the papacy.  On a synodical basis similar to the CofE, ‘power to the people’ next! 

  • Taitofli

    They complain ob ambiguity, the SSPX are doing the same.  They recognise the papcy, Pope Benedict XVI is Pope but continue to disobey the Magisterium of the Church. 
     
    For them, it is justified for they have been apart for so long.  Also showing that they to are modernist by continued disobedience to the Church and continued division in the Church almost to the point of being protestant in nature of separation of the Church but not in the teachings of the church.
     
    Let’s face it, Vatican II is a mess of a Council due to the fact of the implementation mostly in the Liturgy.  The NO, when celebrated the correct way, has it’s sybolism and mistique.  This i know because in the parish in Puerto Rico where i use to attend, it was done the right way.  The parish priest always telling the people what to do in the mass, no exchange of peace other than the one next to you, no holding hands during the Our Father.  I was the choir director so he will tell the songs to be sung and always pointed out when the songs are to finish.
     
    Here in the USA, is different.  Continue to use the norm of the parish in Puerto Rico. 
     
    It can be done, changes are hard but it can be done. 
     
    SSPX leaders just want there way.  Pope Benedict XVI has conceived much for this group to continue their protest for return to “tradition”.  Tradition is made everyday. 

  • http://www.catholicyouthwork.com Catholic Youth Work

    Ah, Mike, you’re always fun. In an only-on-the-internet kind of way, that is!

    Anyway… ‘You lot’??? Spiritual, awe and wonder is fine by me :)

  • rjt1

    The report makes it sound as though the SSPX is recognising the Pope’s disciplinary authority (power of government) but not his teaching authority (failure of the ecclesiastical authorities to adhere to tradition – isn’t that heresy?). That doesn’t look like an adequate basis for reconciliation.

  • http://www.catholicyouthwork.com Catholic Youth Work

    That’s probably right, but I guess the issue I have with that idea is that it’s basically what liberals do (And, no, Mike I’m not!): They accept that the Pope has some aspects of authority but essentially say that they can go against him when conscience or whatever dictates. And, frankly, I don’t see the difference, aside from those rather creepy looking red gloves!!

  • Charles Martel

    Catholic Youth Work, where were you when my four nephews lapsed from the Faith and stopped going to Mass as soon as their parents stopped having the right to force them? You were doubtless being paid a good salary to organise yet more ecumenical neo-protestant events guaranteed to push young men right out of any belief in God at all. What are you doing while 99% of Catholic school leavers lapse? Banging on about ‘the spirit’, no doubt, getting them to hold hands, lecturing about Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela?

  • Charles Martel

     I think you chaps forget that the SSPX was lynched in 1975/6 by the Vatican and the French episcopate and thrown out of the visible structures of the Church. They never left the Church. 

  • Midwester

     They are not disobeying the Magisterium.  Get your facts straight.  They refuse to accept tenets of the documents of Vatican II that contradict the prior doctrines taught by numerous popes, theologians and councils throughout the history of the Church.  The problem is not with the Society.  The problem is with the Modernist clerics and theologians that have led much of the Church into objective apostasy.

  • Midwester

     You do not seem to understand what Modernism is.  I suggest you read Pope St Pius X’s encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html) to learn that it is, in effect, the teaching that the Church must change it’s doctrines, dogmas and traditions to be relevant to modern society.  The SSPX is not Modernist.  By the way, there is a precedent to resist error in the Church.  During the Arian heresy, 90 percent of the bishops were Arians, and Pope Liberius excommunicated St Athanasius, the great defender of the Divinity and Humanity of Christ.  Athanasius and the Church prevailed and Ariansim was condemned at Nicea.  It is interesting that Liberius was the first Pope after Peter who was NOT canonized, because he was wrong and supported heresy.  Do your homework before you criticize those who are supporting the consistent, perennial teaching and tradition of the Church.  Either Rome was wrong for 1900 years and is now right, or Rome was right for 1900 years and is now wrong.  You cannot have it both ways.

  • JabbaPapa

    I think you chaps forget that the SSPX was lynched in 1975/6 by the
    Vatican and the French episcopate and thrown out of the visible
    structures of the Church. They never left the Church.

    Neither position is truthful — six bishops, including 5 SSPX, were excommunicated for rebellion, ie for carrying out an unauthorised ordination of four of those Bishops.

    1) excommunication in itself does NOT mean that you are thrown out of the Church

    2) they weren’t “lynched”, they carried out an act of open rebellion and formal schism

    The current status of other SSPX clergy is variable, and it depends on whether a) their individual ordinations are regular (not just “valid”), that is to say either provided before the excommunications or, otherwise, provided by a non-SSPX Bishop and b) if they are regularly enshrined by a diocesan Bishop or similar authority in their parish or similar (where both conditions are met, that individual priest is considered as being in communion with Rome, and Catholics may freely attend his Masses — whereas the Masses of other SSPX clergy may be attended only conditionally)

  • awkwardcustomer

    “As for all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council, which remain tainted with errors, and for the reforms derived from it,” the statement said, “the society can only continue to uphold the affirmations and teachings of the constant Magisterium of the Church.”
    There’s no comparison between the SSPX in its refusal to accept ‘the novelties of the Second Vatican Council, which remain tainted with errors’, and the modernists who promote those errors.  The SSPX has a wealth of argument to back up its claim that Vatican II, in its desire to accommodate Catholic teaching to the mind set of the modern world, departed from the ‘constant Magisterium of the Church’. 

  • Tomcanning

    Catholic Youth work
            ever heard of Collegiality  ? That was when the popes LOST their authority – and NOT ONE of yourBishops obey him – the SSPX Bishops and ALL members want his authority
      restored – then you might make sense once more

  • http://www.catholicyouthwork.com Catholic Youth Work

    “Your” Bishops?

    Also, yes, I’ve heard of it :)

  • http://profiles.google.com/dpearson4751 Douglas Pearson

    So sad. Hard to criticize them without seeing the preamble that they were asked to sign.

  • PIUSXXX

    So good to see the SSPX providing the usual high quality entertainment…..

  • Nat_ons

    Not so; they need communion with the rest of the church catholic – profoundly – or their genuine mission for the Church cannot be performed .. it is this mission which forms their basic charism that the rest of the Roman communion so badly lacks (whether or not the Society willingly steps up to fulfil it).

  • Nat_ons

    It may well have, that does not make this important Society the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. What must be avoided, if the Society is to function as it ought in the Church, is setting up yet another ‘alternative’ magisterium – a Magisterium of Traditionalists to set over against the magisterium of nuns. Despite enjoying the right of position in regard to upholding one unbreakable continuity of the Sacred Tradition, a lack of charity, humility and obedience .. even toward contrary characters in the Vatican Bureaucracy .. can only undermine the Society’s restoration to a rightful place and sharing the right teaching it seeks to witness.

  • Nat_ons

    In refusing to accept the tenets of the Council Fathers and our Holy Father, Benedict XVI, with their infallible teaching authority – ordinarily expressed in the extraordinary venue of a general pastoral council 50 years ago – they undermine (unintentionally) the very truth they most rightly seek to uphold: the unerring guidance of the Holy Ghost in Christ’s body, the church catholic, even in the expressions of erring men and perverted by erroneously applied teachings.

    That the tenets set out in some of the Council’s texts can be read – all too easily – as being at variance with Sacred Tradition does not mean that i) the heresy of doctrinal evolution (from one thing into quite another), ii) a break in doctrinal continuity (replaced at best by mere contiguity of content), or iii) a positive expression opposed to a negative declaration (on dogma, witness to the world, the incomparability of catholic truth) was the fundamental purpose of those same tenets.

    What we faced before, during and after the Council was a long fermenting coup d’etat, and the state being so heatedly challenged is the very City of God, not from hostile enemies but by radical friends (enthralled to the easy blandishments of the real enemy, the Accuser) – this is a reality of deep-seated disease understood long before the Council was ever called, and as a healing poultice, every lurking, poisonous infection was drawn to the surface by the effects of Council (both good and bad). 

    The grace of setting right an understanding of the teaching of the Council, its many blessed Fathers, and the Holy Father today cannot ever be a matter of ripping up their teaching – as if they form a council of robbers without continuity in the witness of Saint Peter to the Lord our God, Jesus Christ. Yet right teaching must be set out, and not least from the Council’s texts .. however difficult this may appear to be .. or doctrinal discontinuity is (paradoxically) proven. Placing the texts and their (excessively) positive expression of (properly) negative truths squarely in the context of Sacred Tradition (not some fanciful ‘church of the future’) is the daunting task that faces the SSPX (and us all) – yet it can happen only if we are willing to lift up the reeking poultice, cleanse the stinking infections it has helped to raise, and allow healing to begin to occur ..

  • awkwardcustomer

    It depends how you think the SSPX should ‘function as it ought in the Church’.  I cannot speak for the Society, but my understanding is that they have no intention of ‘setting up yet another ‘alternative’ magisterium’. Instead they adhere to the 2,000 year Magisterium of the Church, but reject the concept of a ‘living’ magisterium as promoted by Modernism.

    The key is in the word ‘living’, since every living is, by its nature, subject to change.  According to the Modernist view, dogma, liturgy, tradition, can changes as the ages roll on, because their origins lie within the human individual, whose own inner need for God brings these things into being and shapes them according to their experience of the world around them at any given time in history. 

    On the other hand, the Society holds that Catholic dogma, liturgy, tradition, has its origens in the Divine and the eternal, and that while the human means of presenting them can develop with time, the Truth they convey cannot.  If you like, the accidents can change but the essence cannot.

      

  • E Bdx Fr

    Are you aware that SAINT ATHANASIUS, one of the CHURCH FATHERS
    was excommunicated as one stage?
    Why was he excommunicated? Because he resisted the arian heresy
    which denied the divinity of Christ. 
    Who excommunicated him? Pope Liberius.
    I’m fed of of hearing ignorant people who have not got the slightest notion
    of catholic history, continually attack the SSPX.
    I suggest you read up on your catholic history.
    There are numerous catholic saints who were persecuted but those with authority over them.
    Obedience to the FAITH, comes before obedience to pope.
    Where a pope is himself introducing novelties or not condemning them,
    such a pope may be and should be resisted or even disobeyed.
    Saint Athanasius disobeyed Pope Liberius, a pope who was not doing anything to arrest the progress of Arianism. Just as JP II did nothing to arrest the spread of neo modernism which has so damaged the church of today.

  • JabbaPapa

    Yes, I am aware that several Saints of the Church have also been excommunicated by the Church during their lifetimes. And ?

    As I pointed out, excommunication in itself does NOT mean that you are thrown out of the Church

    And I certainly have NOT attacked the SSPX.

    I was simply pointing out the actual canonical realities surrounding the excommunications, and surrounding any irregular ordinations of priests since that time. This is not an “attack” — it’s a description.

  • REALTRADITIONALCATHOLIC

     Midwester, my compliments to you,  among many here (I assume most in UK) who still don’t have a clue about the SSPX Society, the Archbishop, the Faith, and the real modernists who not only facilitated and promoted VII, but those like Bugnini, the architect and mason who literally tried to destroy the Mass. Or even Pope Benedict, who as Cardinal Ratzinger was never a friend to the full tradition of the Catholic Church. Today, whatever he does I am convinced he really has not choice since the truth of the matter(s) are obvious and cannot be suppressed much longer. What he should really do is to stop admiring VII with all  its errors, restore the SSPX socoety to its full and rightful recognition, and admit the lie of the Lefebvre “excommunication”, instead of throwing bones to faithful catholics.

    Why can’t NO catholics get it through their heads, the Smoke of Satan was let into the sanctuary as Paul VI (of all people) said as he literally cried when he saw what VII had wrought and would do. Yet he did nothing to correct the errors of that council.

    Instaurare Omnia in Christo

  • REALTRADITIONALCATHOLIC

     Exactly Charles. Thank you.

  • REALTRADITIONALCATHOLIC

    None of your “descriptions” are accurate or true JabbaPapa. And even though it’s therefore unnecessary I will add that the Mass obligation is fulfilled for catholics at SSPX celebrations without condition, a question that was answered by the Vatican long before any so called “excommunications”. Your knowledge of the Faith and the Church is lacking even more so than cafeteria catholics. If you say you are Catholic where were you baptized in the Church and in what parish do you live?

  • JabbaPapa

    I’m sorry, but it is not true that the Sunday obligation is fulfilled “without condition” at SSPX Masses.

    (BTW this has nothing to do with the doctrine, because SSPX is not in a state of doctrinal schism and never has been ; this is a question of canon law)

    Oh, and THIS : a question that was answered by the Vatican long before any so called “excommunications” is ludicrous — how can the Vatican possibly have declared anything pursuant to the excommunications BEFORE they were made ????

    The conditions whereby attendance of a SSPX Mass will fulfill the Sunday obligation are really not very hard to meet, and most of those attending such Masses therefore do fulfill that obligation — but this is not the same as “without condition”.

    Those ignorant of the exact particulars of the canons with regard to this matter, or otherwise genuinely believing that the obligation is fulfilled, do fulfill their obligation by attending such Masses — as do those having serious or grave reasons to attend these Masses, such as for example any licit and serious enough doubts about the liturgical or other regularity of Masses provided elsewhere in their local area might provide, or for honest family reasons, or so on and so forth.

    The conditions are, again, so broadly defined that the great majority of those attending those Masses are considered to have fulfilled the Sunday obligation –  but this is not the same as “without condition”.

    Someone, however, who had no pressing reason or motive to attend such Masses, in an area where at least one properly orthodox and objectively non-abusive diocesan Mass were available to that person, and *provided* that this person were consciously aware of the canonical irregularity of the SSPX, as well as being aware of the actual significance of “canonical irregularity” in and of itself, could not fulfill for those reasons his Sunday obligation at a SSPX Mass, by virtue of his awareness of the irregularity of the SSPX clergy — *unless* this were a case where the ordination of that particular SSPX priest providing that Mass were canonically regular (which is the state of many older SSPX clergy), and the diocesan Bishop had furthermore provided specific permission to attend Masses given at that church (which is not uncommon either), in which case the Sunday obligation is quite clearly fulfilled.

  • REALTRADITIONALCATHOLIC

     You are really desperately nitpicking. Perhaps the following will be clearer to you, taken from the “Catholic Caveman” blog
    .
     
    The SSPX and One’s Sunday Obligation
    Recently,
    I became involved in a discussion with a reader of the Cave regarding
    one’s Sunday obligation and attending a SSPX chapel. It amazes me that
    so many folks still think that a Sunday Mass at a SSPX chapel will lead
    one straight to Hell!

    A
    basic search of documents on the web from Rome (Ecclesia Dei, etc)
    would answer the “Sunday Obligation” question very quickly. However, I
    will save you the trouble by highlighting a few key areas:

    The
    first significant event following the 1988 consecrations of the four
    bishops was the case which became known as “the Hawaii Six” (1991-1994):
    six lay men and women who had a radio show deeply critical of the
    Diocese of Honolulu and its leadership and who helped fund and build a
    SSPX chapel in Hawaii. The bishop of Honolulu excommunicated these
    Catholics for the crime of schism (by having a SSPX bishop confirm their
    children). Then-Cardinal Ratzinger, through the Congregation for the
    Doctrine of the Faith, had to intervene and nullify the
    excommunications, much to the embarrassment of the Honolulu bishop.

    From the March 31, 2007, issue of The Remnant

    Darío
    Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos has repeatedly affirmed that the Society of
    St. Pius X (SSPX) is not a case of formal schism on at least five
    separate occasions in public interviews, as recently as March 17, 2007,
    and over the past 2-1/2 years. Msgr. Camille Perl, long-time secretary
    for the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED), has repeatedly
    affirmed in personal letters that such Catholics incur no penalty and no
    sin for merely fulfilling one’s Sunday obligation at a church or chapel
    served by the SSPX.

    “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.”

    On
    January 8, 2003, the Vatican’s Ecclesia Dei Commission, in response to
    someone who asked about attending chapels of the Society of Saint Pius X
    founded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, wrote in a letter that:

    1) Attending the Society of Saint Pius X chapels fulfills the Catholic’s Sunday obligation,

    2) That Catholics are permitted to make financial contributions to the Society of Saint Pius X.

    The
    fact remains that the lay faithful who attend SSPX masses to fulfill
    their Sunday obligation are not sinning nor incurring any canonical
    penalty by doing so.

  • JabbaPapa

    You are really desperately nitpicking.

    No, I’m not — you on the other hand are aiming false accusations at me.

    I am accusing NOBODY of ANYTHING.

    six lay men and women who had a radio show deeply critical of the Diocese of Honolulu and its leadership and who helped fund and build a SSPX chapel in Hawaii. The bishop of Honolulu excommunicated these Catholics for the crime of schism (by having a SSPX bishop confirm their
    children). Then-Cardinal Ratzinger, through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had to intervene and nullify the excommunications, much to the embarrassment of the Honolulu bishop.

    Quite proper — good for Joseph Ratzinger !!!

    Lay Catholics cannot be excommunicated for such obviously frivolous reasons.

    Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos has repeatedly affirmed that the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) is not a case of formal schism on at least five separate occasions in public interviews, as recently as March 17, 2007, and over the past 2-1/2 years. Msgr. Camille Perl, long-time secretary for the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED), has repeatedly affirmed in personal letters that such Catholics incur no penalty and no sin for merely fulfilling one’s Sunday obligation at a church or chapel served by the SSPX.

    “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.”

    I have ZERO respect for Cardinal Castrillón de Hoyos, since it emerged that he personally congratulated various Bishops for concealing child abuse accusations from various Police forces, and encouraged them to continue doing so.

    It seems SSPX has not much more respect than I have, given that he was formally disinvited from an important SSPX function, after these details emerged in public, where he was to have been the main VIP, and give Mass to the SSPX dignitaries.

    Having said that, the statement 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
    is formally correct, but it does not actually contradict my own description of the facts of the matter.

    That is because of the difference between “in the strict sense” and “in the ordinary sense” (“ordinary” being used here in its ecclesial meaning, to be crystal clear).

    There is no doubt that the Sunday obligation may, when the proper conditions are met, be fulfilled at a Mass given by a SSPX priest.

    On January 8, 2003, the Vatican’s Ecclesia Dei Commission, in response to someone who asked about attending chapels of the Society of Saint Pius X founded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, wrote in a letter that:

    1) Attending the Society of Saint Pius X chapels fulfills the Catholic’s Sunday obligation,

    2) That Catholics are permitted to make financial contributions to the Society of Saint Pius X.

    The fact remains that the lay faithful who attend SSPX masses to fulfill their Sunday obligation are not sinning nor incurring any canonical penalty by doing so.

    You have been misinformed :

    http://www.cfnews.org/sspx-obl.htm

    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, 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 at 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

    As you can see for yourself — fulfillment of one’s Sunday obligation at a Mass provided by a SSPX priest is conditional, as I have stated.

  • Guest234

    why do they have to wear gloves? Accepting the Pope but not accepting the vatican Council or its doucments? and all along their supporters posting videos on http://www.youtube that their church is the true church and the Roman one a kind of imposter and calling Pope John XXIII and Pope PaulVI “illegal Popes’.

    Why do we bother with these people? Fellay wants to join but the other clerics don’t and he can’t bring his troops along? So why all the bother? and we will judge the other clerics on their own. Does it mean this is defined so that we can exclude the holocaust denying bishop – what’s his name – Williamson?

  • Guest234

    This is like a bunch of misbehaving kids telling their parents that they will come back home but they don’t like the family rules and can you please change them so that we can come home. With me it doesn’t wash

  • JabbaPapa

    Monseigneur Fellay has, as I understand things, the overwhelming support of a majority of the Society clergy and religious, and that of most lay supporters of the SSPX.

  • JabbaPapa

    You do not understand the Modernist heresy, given that your own statements have eaten the fruits of that heresy.

  • Hammondcarr

    The Church needs the SSPX like it needs the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen, the Most Holy Family Monastery, the SSPV and Pope Michael of Kansas.

    http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/SSPX

  • Alan

    .When the SSPX talk about “the constant Magisterium of the Church”, which they allege Vatican II departed from, they are defining the Magisterium in terms which suit their own opinions.  You don’t like Vatican II?  Then it can’t be of the Magisterium.  You like the old teaching that “error has no rights”?  Then it must be of the Magisterium.  This is pure private judgement.  Modernism, if you like.

  • REALTRADITIONALCATHOLIC

     This could go on forever. As the saying goes the liberal is one who seeks to avoid the disciplines of the truth. Notice, that says “disciplines”, not necessarily truth itself though in the end the effect amounts to the same thing when you “avoid disciplines”.

    The debate has raged for decades in America and little or nothing has been accomplished to resolve the issue in the minds of cafeteria catholics or otherwise NO minded catholics, as they twist, select, and manipulate the facts, issues, canon law, and so on, as you are doing to fit your argument.

    I’m sorry I wasted my time, and yours,  in trying to reason with you. I’ll just leave you with a quote from St. Augustine (354-430).

    “Wrong is wrong even if
    everybody is doing it, and right is right even if nobody is doing it”  and that obviously must include those in the Church including the pope(s). The religious “obedience” issues are quite clearly dependent on validity and truth, both of which MUST be the rule in observing religious vows. If not, as in the case of Marcel Lefebvre (and others in history) , the vow of obedience is to Christ, instead of tho those above him who have neglected their own vows in the chain of command as it were. That obviously must include those in the Church including the pope(s) and hierarchy. If you read canon law and Church doctrine in their entire context you will see how your liberally minded debating is NOT catholic and clearly in error.  God help you, whoever you are. 

     

  • Gregory

     Williams does not deny the Holocaust occurred; he simply questions the 6 million figure and believes it significantly less. I don’t have the information to judge whether his or the official numbers are correct so I won’t pass judgment. However, lets end the dictatorship of political correctness where we can’t even discuss the real facts because certain subjects have been deemed off limits by pompous self appointed speech and thought controllers.

  • JabbaPapa

    As the saying goes the liberal is one who seeks to avoid the disciplines of the truth.

    According to this definition, you are a liberal then.

  • Nat_ons

    Looking at the pronouncements of the Societies Hierarchy – and the less official websites dedicated to it – the notion that is sees itself as a ‘magisterium’ rather than part of the Magisterium speaks loud. 

    http://www.sspx.co.uk/attachments/article/420/Bishop%20Bernard%20Tissier%20de%20Mallerais.pdf '“All power has been given to me in heaven and earth, go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.”
    Here is the mission of the Church and the mission of the Society of St. Pius X and the Faith which we have by the power of Jesus Christ, by the power of Christ the King, Christ the priest, which supports us in our mission. We have fought for Christ the Priest, for the priesthood and for his priests, for the Church and for Christ the King, that is for a Catholic State. 
    And we shall continue the fight, dear faithful, as did the saints of the first centuries of the Church, confronted with heresy, which undermined the Catholic Faith, just like today. There is a comparison to be made between the Arian errors against the Blessed Trinity and the heresies of today against the priesthood and the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ.’This is good staring stuff from a magisterially-minded, pontifical hierarch – but not one with due and respectful mention of recognition, communion or fellowship with the Holy Father. ‘When the Conciliarists come back, one day, in twenty five years, repenting of the council, when they see the ongoing catastrophes, the empty seminaries, the churches in ruins, apostasy everywhere, immorality everywhere, then they will repent deeply. When they do, when they begin to come back, full of repentance we can use “gentle” expressions to help them. But not now!  The crisis is in full swing, now we have to be firm and condemn the errors of the council, especially the denial of Christ the King, the refusal of Christ the King. That, dear faithful, is our plan of action. There’s no point in deceiving ourselves, there’s no way the crisis is almost over, the crisis is far from being over, the fight is going to last a long time and so we need to get organised, to last out and to continue to profess the whole Catholic Faith in full confidence in the power of Our Lord Jesus Christ.’There the lack of unity with the See of Peter speaks loudest, for those who disagree with the Society are not the church catholic, they must repent and return to the ideology of the Society, H.H. Benedict XVI has not come back to the Society’s presentation of the Faith .. and only in twenty five years hence can the Society expect to see ‘Conciliarists’, such a the Pope, repent and return .. that is a magisterium beside or in opposition to the Magisterium (not an exposition on the errors of modernism, liberalism and indifferentism expressed by many using Vatican II as means of destroying the Church, overturning the papacy and inculcating catastrophe, ruin and apostasy as the norm of orthodox Faith).

    A change of heart must also come from the Society, and not the Conciliarists alone. The Society must not lose its great charism for the up-building of the church catholic – continuity in Sacred Tradition as the living faith (not a piece of history), but it must eschew its version of the hermeneutic of discontinuity – in root and branch. Whereas, in my lay opinion, the Conciliarists must move from the denial phase (fast fading in the best places) and into correction mode (as led stalwartly by the awesome Benedict XVI); this shift might best be expressed not in references to a hermeneutic of continuity but in the frank condemnation of errors influencing many at the Council and arising from the misuse of its authoritative (but not dogmatic) teachings, while upholding the indefectibility of the Church even at the Council (or a hermeneutic of discontinuity is once more advanced).

  • Parasum

    “The Joy of ClarityCommentary on the Declaration of theGeneral Chapter of the Society of St. Pius X” 

    See: 
    http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-0731-brian-mccall-joy-clarity-sspx-general-chapter.htm## If they are schismatics, the entire CC is schismatic. By any reasonable criterion, they are as Catholic as can be imagined. The clarity of the article is a refreshing change from the laboured circumlocutions of which the Vatican seems so fond. 

  • Parasum

    “why do they have to wear gloves?” 

    Gloves are a liturgical vestment for bishops & cardinals. 

    The Abp. preaching during a Mass of ordination in 1976:

    http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Images/MgrLefebvre.jpg

    Episcopal Gloves:

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06589a.htm

    Cardinal Ratzinger at Wigratzbad Seminary in 1990:
    http://www.fssp.org/objet/Ratzinger05.jpg
    Cardinal Canizares:
    http://www.catholicvoice.ie/uploads/canizares(2).jpg
    Ven. Pope Pius XII:http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZIvg_I3yHx0/Sy0Tt9LNCFI/AAAAAAAAFkU/e0uSkhlxFRU/s400/Pope-pius-xii-02.jpgSome more photos, with text about gloves:http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZIvg_I3yHx0/Sy0Tt9LNCFI/AAAAAAAAFkU/e0uSkhlxFRU/s400/Pope-pius-xii-02.jpgAnd three more photos (all from the Orbis Catholicus weblog): http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cQ2xhpZfenk/STvHXQSi2RI/AAAAAAAADzY/N1LrHR5R8bE/s1600/gloves+i.JPGhttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/_cQ2xhpZfenk/STxVqgDuCHI/AAAAAAAADzo/jwvuJazeUIU/s400/violet+glove.JPGhttp://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cQ2xhpZfenk/STxVrE9ZuyI/AAAAAAAADzw/rfVt5kUdsfQ/s400/white+glove.JPGhttp://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cQ2xhpZfenk/STxVrE9ZuyI/AAAAAAAADzw/rfVt5kUdsfQ/s400/white+glove.JPG
     

  • Parasum

     “…excommunication in itself does NOT mean that you are thrown out of the Church…”
    ## Then the word should not be used, because that is what it means. To excommunicate someone is to put them *out of*, or to declare they are out of, *communion* (with the Church).  Was Henry VIII *in communion* with Rome after Paul III excommunicated him ? 

    OK, so ecclesiology has developed since then – but  not so much that excommunication now means being *in communion*. “In” & “out” do not mean the same, or anything like the same. If the reality of what is called excommunication has changed, so should the word. Otherwise, to continue using it causes nothing but confusion & misunderstanding.   

  • Sweetjae

    Right on, I read these articles too, SSPX position is really untenable.

  • Sweetjae

    Right on the mark, SSPX is also quilty of the same ideals of modernism (interpreting tradition by themselves) that they have condemned.

  • awkwardcustomer

    Either the documents of Vatican II contain error and novelty or they don’t. If they do, then the Holy Ghost cannot have inspired them as the Holy Ghost does not teach error and novelty.  It has been argued that the extent of the Holy Ghost’s involvement at Vatican II was inspiring the Council Fathers not to declare the Council infallible.

    The SSPX argues that Religious Liberty, Ecumenism, Collegiality are contrary to the 2,000 year Magisterium of the Church.  And we all know that there must be a new theology at work in the move from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered by a priest acting in the person of Christ, towards the Eucharist celebrated by the people of God with the priest presiding.

    Try as hard as you can, but you won’t find these teachings in the Church’s 2,000 year Magisterium, which the SSPX adheres to.  But you will find them in the documents of Vatican II.  It is the Conciliarists who are setting up an alternative magisterium, a ‘living’ magisterium which promotes ideas that are foreign to the Catholic Faith in order to appeal to modern man. Pope Benedict seems intent on reigning in the wildest excesses of the Conciliar reformers, and nothing much more.  He remains committed to Vatican II, despite its errors, as do the Bishops who cause so much exasperation in this and other blogs.  

  • Guest234

    No the way I see it its more personal than theological….Cardinal Ratzinger was appointed the mediator by Pope Paul VI to negotiate with Lefebevre(spelling?) when they first went their separate ways (we can call that a schism or a split or just split hairs with words. It was the first and only schism since Vatican II) and failed then. So as Pope he wishes to try again.
    He is going about it the right way because he lifts the excommunications and then talks. That is the right way. You cannot talk well to people whom you have with your high and mighty ways previously excommunicated!
    The Pope has his trusted confidant Augustine DiNoia to deal with them. If the Ratzinger-DiNoia team cannot achieve the unity then I think nobody can!
    But personally I think they are wasting their time and bending over backwards too much to accommodate the SSPX. We are too forgiving of their past slights. In my youth I cannot remember us criticisng them but the media is so full of their slights towards us on all manner of our liturgy. Every manner of petty thing they will bring up like childlish school kids. Much water has flowed under the bridge and much time has been lost, I feel unity is elusive again.

    We better concentrate on the Orthodox, (unity up the line maybe easier) and Lutherans. Luther was right about much of what he said of 13th century papacy. My chaplain told me that Vatican II gave Lutherans many concessions in fact all that Luther complained about. Sadly they did not return.

  • Guest234

    Jabba Papa you confuse us – if Fellay has the overwhelming support of his society why didn’t he signed the Vatican document and deferred at the last minute? Is he negotiating for a better deal and isn’t his mitre studded with what looks like rubies? No? Embroidery? No they will be taking care of themselves, forgetting the poor and having access to the Vatican vast fortunes?
    No way for this crowd. Why should we have them back?

  • no room for traitors

    We should have nothing to do with the SSPX. That’s a TROJAN HORSE waiting to take over the Catholic church.
    Come now people – if his consecration as a bishop is not recognised by the Vatican how can he dress in bishop’s costume. How can he appear before the Pope with bishops garb, complete with pectoral cross and skull cap. Now people really its just too much! Its like welcoming Judas back in the fold!