What is wrong with FSSP?

[Cam42]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Mar 5 2006, 07:34 PM']haha! Does Opus Dei ring a bell?
[right][snapback]903663[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Opus Dei is not free from the local Ordinary. We must still submit to him in matters of Church law in his diocese. We must also ask permission to be erected in his diocese.

Sorry, you are misinformed.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='Ora et Labora' date='Mar 5 2006, 06:59 PM']ya know why sam...its because the sspx arnt in full union with rome. duh! and the bishops are.  the sspx dont think they need to listen...grrr

im not saying though that the bishops make the best choices...but thats not the point. they at least have the popes blessing.
[right][snapback]903677[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


exactly. from what i understand, the sspx is not in full communion. but the faithful may be and so may the priests, just not the bishops. (correct me if i am wrong please)

[Cam42]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Mar 5 2006, 08:03 PM']exactly. from what i understand, the sspx is not in full communion. but the faithful may be and so may the priests, just not the bishops. (correct me if i am wrong please)
[right][snapback]903683[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

If one adheres to the schism of Archbishop Lefevbre, then one is not in full communion. It is that simple. It is that simple.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote]PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO
'ECCLESIA DEI'

n. 55/2005 Rome, September 5, 2005

Sir,

Your letter of July 11 arrived at this Pontifical Commission (...), but it has not been answered up to now due to the annual vacations during the month of August.

...

Because your letter actually involves the competence of our Commission 'Ecclesia Dei', we have precised in our letter what follows:

'On the argument presented (that you regularly attend Sunday Mass at a chapel of the Fraternity Saint Pius X) one cannot say but this: the faithful who attend the Masses of the aforesaid Fraternity are not excommunicates, and the priests who celebrate them are not, either -- the latter are, in fact, suspended. Which is why it would be difficult to explain this exclusion by this sole motive, at a time in which the reintegration of this Fraternity to the full communion of the Church is sought.'

The Council for Culture, whose president is Cardinal Poupard, will certainly let you know of his decision.

Receive, sir, my religious regards, [Veuillez croire, Monsieur, à mon dévouement religieux,]

CAMILLE PERL
Secretary[/quote]

[url="http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2006/03/ecclesia-dei-sspx-priests-and-faithful.html"]http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2006/03/e...d-faithful.html[/url]

[Ora et Labora]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Mar 5 2006, 06:03 PM']exactly. from what i understand, the sspx is not in full communion. but the faithful may be and so may the priests, just not the bishops. (correct me if i am wrong please)
[right][snapback]903683[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

whats the point of being in something that the founder is in schism for?! and no...your not wrong, i dont think i know as much as the sspx as you would...and i take that as a good thing. :

[Cam42]

Old news......we have gone over that before......there is a dubium involved, why are there parts blacked out? And how does a personal letter from Msgr Perl outweigh an official reply to the same question?

The answer is that it doesn't.....here is the official reply, just for your edification, Sam.....

[quote]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[/quote]

[quote name='Msgr. Camille Perl']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 [u]the canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X[/u] which we will summarize briefly here.

1.) [u]The priests of the Society of St. Pius X[/u] are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. [b]To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.[/b]

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[/quote]


And from your own link;

[quote name='Br. Alexis Bugnulo']yes you can be excommunicated and not in schism.

yes you can be in schism and not excommuniated

yet you can be in schism and excommuinicated

the first is anyone excommunicated e.g. for a disciplinary measure

the second are all the Orthodox after Paul VI withdrew the decree of excommunication of 1954

the third are all those churches which broke from Rome (e.g. Old Catholics) are incurred excommunication along with schism.


Plus, sedevacantists are in defacto schism.

Of course strictly speaking you cannot be a catholic unless you are in communion with, and hence recognize as validly elected, the Pope of Rome, hold the whole catholic faith, dissent from no infallible teaching, etc. etc.

But there are other lesser degrees of catholic, such as which apply to Matthew Fox, Kung, Rahner, Arius, etc. Though each of these may properly be said to be not catholic, they were all at one time or still are (depending to what extent you use your terms) catholic and priests.

So many arguments result from not using terms correctly and presuming the other is using them in a sense that would make what he said false; and I confess having many times fallen into this before myself.

Better to ask the other interlocutor; what do you mean by x y or z, or when you say a b or c.[/quote]

Sam, you had best be able to back up your assertions before you start making them. You are offering a private letter as an offical response. That is not the case. You are also offering a dubious publication; as parts of that letter have been omitted.

I am providing an official answer from the compitent authority. It is this documentation that is authoritative, not yours......considering that the authors are the same, it would be held that the official document holds weight and the personal letter is nothing more than opionion, which is not binding, in the least.

Try again, Sam.....that one doesn't hold any weight.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

Cam,

I am not making an assertions, in fact i know and acknowledge that you are much more knowledgable on the subject than myself, and in fact i do not want to argue, i just wanted a response.

but i did grab this from your quote:
[quote][b]
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."
[/b][/quote]


does this mean that i can attend an SSPX mass to fufill my sunday obligation if i only wish to hear a tridentine mass?

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Mar 5 2006, 07:26 PM']does this mean that i can attend an SSPX mass to fufill my sunday obligation if i only wish to hear a tridentine mass?
[right][snapback]903702[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
No. It means that if it is absolutely impossible to attend any other mass, N.O. or indult TLM, at a church which is in full communion with Rome, you are permitted to attend a SSPX mass. You cannot attend one simply because you cannot find another TLM around. If there is a N.O. Mass offered, you must attend it and not the SSPX mass.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Mar 5 2006, 08:26 PM']Cam,

I am not making an assertions, in fact i know and acknowledge that you are much more knowledgable on the subject than myself, and in fact i do not want to argue, i just wanted a response.

[quote].  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."[/quote]

but i did grab this from your quote:
does this mean that i can attend an SSPX mass to fufill my sunday obligation if i only wish to hear a tridentine mass?
[right][snapback]903702[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No. I have explained to you what the conditions are. Again, you have a right to the Sacraments, but you don't have a right to the Sacraments of your own choosing. What does the first sentence say.....? You are only reading what you want and ignoring the rest.

If there is a Mass that is in union with Rome, then you are bound to attend that Mass. If there is no Mass being said within reason, then one may attend an illicit Mass without entering into sin.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

I am not ignoring the rest. It says we can Not recomned you going. It does not say "it is a sin if you go unless there is no other mass in communion with Rome around"

[Cam42]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Mar 5 2006, 08:46 PM']I am not ignoring the rest. It says we can Not recomned you going. It does not say "it is a sin if you go unless there is no other mass in communion with Rome around"
[right][snapback]903712[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The explaination has been given to you on another thread....please read that there. You are being obsitnant.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote]Wrong answer. I was not speaking of the indult. You have a right to the Sacraments. However you do not have a right to whatever Sacrament you wish to go to......if there is a Novus Ordo parish available, you cannot simply skip it, and go to an independent chapel because there is no indult parish around.

Sorry....but that is contrary to the Church's understanding of Sacramental theology. And you would be skipping a licit Mass intentionally for a schimatic Mass. That, according to the Church, is unacceptable.
[/quote]


then why does the Priest say it is not sinful to go to an SSPX if one can not find an indult?

this seems to be contradictory.

[cmotherofpirl]

Because going to an SSPX Mass is better than not going to Mass at all.

[dspen2005]

why would you attend a schismatic Mass when there is one that is in the complete fullness (redundancy) of the Faith and is in communion w/ Rome? that makes no sense...

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

maybe one prefers the TLM