Rorate Caeli

"Schismatic sect" update


It truly is amazing that ecumenical niceties suddenly disappear when a certain "schismatic" "sect" is involved. From the official publication of the Diocese of Richmond, Virginia (tip C.P.):

The St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in a rural area of Buckingham County is operated by the Society of St. Pius X, a schismatic sect which is not in communion with the Holy See.

Catholics who attend Sunday liturgy there do not fulfill their Sunday obligation and the sacraments offered are not valid in accordance with the Vatican.

There is an element of confusion among some Catholics about the validity of the liturgy and the sacraments at the seminary which opened a year ago.

Father Anthony Morris, pastor of St. Theresa Parish in Farmville, says that his church office frequently gets calls from people, some of whom express excitement, and want to know if the seminary Mass is an alternative to the regular Sunday Mass at a Catholic parish. It is not.

“I have announced it from the pulpit to our parishioners,” Father Morris told The Catholic Virginian.

In addition to St. Theresa’s in Farmville, Father Morris is pastor of the adjacent parishes of Immaculate Heart of Mary in Blackstone, Sacred Heart in Meherrin, and Nativity in Buckingham.

The seminary in Buckingham is affiliated with the Society of St. Pius X, an international sect founded in 1970 by the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

Pope Benedict XVI has declared that, for doctrinal rather than disciplinary reasons, the Society of St. Pius X has no canonical status within the Roman Catholic Church and the ministries exercised by its ministers are not legitimate.

Fine, the largest Catholic seminary being built in America is the work of a "schismatic" "sect" not in communion for "doctrinal" reasons - like the Eastern Orthodox, then. Can we at least grant them the same treatment? From the Decree on Ecumenism of the Second Vatican Council, Unitatis Redintegratio:

There can be no ecumenism worthy of the name without a change of heart. For it is from renewal of the inner life of our minds, from self-denial and an unstinted love that desires of unity take their rise and develop in a mature way. We should therefore pray to the Holy Spirit for the grace to be genuinely self-denying, humble, gentle in the service of others, and to have an attitude of brotherly generosity towards them. St. Paul says: "I, therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace". This exhortation is directed especially to those raised to sacred Orders precisely that the work of Christ may be continued. He came among us "not to be served but to serve".

The words of St. John hold good about sins against unity: "If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us". So we humbly beg pardon of God and of our separated brethren, just as we forgive them that trespass against us.
___________________________________

Well, if those in Buckingham Co., Virginia, wish to find a real Catholic church, they can always travel across the country and visit the Jesuit parish of San Francisco, St. Ignatius:

On Wednesday, June 27, the United States Supreme Court handed down two decisions—on Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Amendment –that eviscerated legal marriage in the United States. The following Sunday thus offered Catholic priests a matchless opportunity to articulate the Church’s definition of what marriage is, and what it is not. Indeed, since the decisions had such civilizational import, such articulation was less an opportunity than an absolute obligation.

One priest did choose to address the issue. At San Francisco’s St. Ignatius Church, the 9:30 AM Mass on Sunday, June 30 was celebrated by the church’s pastor, Fr. Gregory R. Bonfiglio, SJ. But rather than presenting Church teaching to his audience, rather than, for instance, stating the simple truth that properly ordered sexuality leads to the creation of new life, while sodomitical relations lead, as San Franciscans know all too well, to physical death and to spiritual death, Fr. Bonfiglio chose to read a letter written by Fr. John D. Whitney, SJ, of St. Joseph’s Church in Seattle. In the letter, which is titled “Why Am I In The Parade?” and which runs to 1,098 words, Fr. Whitney justified his presence in Seattle’s “Gay Pride” parade. The letter was published in St. Joseph’s June 23, 2013 parish bulletin. Given the content of the letter (Fr. Whitney absurdly equated Church teaching on homosexuality with Old Testament dietary restrictions, and ignorantly repeats the long-debunked assertion that the word “faggot” derives from “faggots” of wood), and the timing of Fr. Bonfiglio’s homily, the Sunday immediately after the legalization of counterfeit “marriage,” the homily can be seen as nothing less than support of homosexual “marriage.”

During Fr. Bonfiglio’s reading of the letter, the Church was eerily quiet. At least one parishioner was seen leaving the church in tears. When queried she said “It’s not his church! It’s the Catholic church! I should be able to just go to Church! I want to go to a Catholic Church!” (Source: California Catholic Daily, via The Curt Jester)

67 comments:

Alphonsus Jr. said...

Conciliarists are scared to death of Catholics.

Matthew said...

Their Sacraments are not valid? They are schismatic? Their "liturgies" do not fulfill the Sunday obligation?

Who is more Catholic than the Pope now?

Johannes de Silentio said...

Methinks that there would not be so many excited inquiries if the Diocese of Richmond provided for a regularly scheduled Latin Mass somewhere in its vast territory west of Richmond. Your sheep are hungry, Bishop DiLorenzo. Will they be fed?

JB said...



"There can be no ecumenism worthy of the name without a change of heart. For it is from renewal of the inner life of our minds, from self-denial and an unstinted love that desires of unity take their rise and develop in a mature way."

Wow, sounds so pre-Vatican II, so harsh....

BroHenry said...

Thank GOD for Bp. Bruskewitz!
After his bold
excommunication of the SSPX in 1996, the wolves scattered. And not just in Lincoln, but the entire State of
Nebraska! Good to know that Bp. Conley has stated that the excommunications will stand under his watch.

Liam Ronan said...

Jesus Mercy!

Bwangi Kilonzo said...

We'll I am a tradie, and I do not think I would go to an SSPX parish for Sunday Mass. I would hold my nose and go to a Novus Ordo Liturgy if I had to. The irregular status with Rome certainly put a dumper on things.


However, Rome cannot be allowing folks to write some of this stuff with a straight face and pretend to be ecumenical and charitable towards fellow Christians, especially when they will not use the same language for known heretics like protestants. Where is ze spirit of Vatican II in this statement you ask? I think you can see the Spirit of Vatican II here clearly. It lacks charity towards that which is Catholic.

My Question to the Generation dying now since Vatican II is, can you say with a sincere heart, that you handed down what you received? Can you look at our Lord and say you truly as a Bishop in his church transmitted the faith as you received it?


Richmond Catholic said...

http://richmondcatholic.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/new-sspx-seminary-getting-hard-to-ignore-in-richmond/

ecclesia militante said...

To Father Anthony Morris. In the highly unlikely possibility that you are actually reading this thread, I would like to make a comment/suggestion for you:

If so many people are calling your office showing excitement to go to a TLM Then maybe it might be a good idea to work with your local bishop and give them one at St. Theresa Parish, or Immaculate Heart of Mary in Blackstone, Sacred Heart in Meherrin, and Nativity in Buckingham. As another commentator has said...the people are hungry, spiritually hungry, and they want to be fed!

Athelstane said...

Methinks that there would not be so many excited inquiries if the Diocese of Richmond provided for a regularly scheduled Latin Mass somewhere in its vast territory west of Richmond. Your sheep are hungry, Bishop DiLorenzo. Will they be fed?

His Excellency probably thinks: "Hey, I've got two - count 'em, two - FSSP personal parishes in my diocese, so I'm ahead of the game."

And from a relative standpoint, sadly, he wouldn't be too far wrong. It certainly puts him ahead of some bishops in the region who would sooner eat crickets than allow the Fraternity to set up base.

The problem, however, is that the diocese extends to the Kentucky border. Tough luck for those unwilling to drive a few hours to reach a TLM.

culbreath said...

Apparently the gloves are coming off. But it's nice to see a bishop suddenly re-discover old fashioned pre-conciliar notions like "Sunday obligation", "sacramental validity", and so forth. Got to look for that silver lining!

Robbie said...

One thing I'm never going to understand is how a Baptism in a Protestant faith suffices so long as it is in the name of the Trinity, but all of the Sacraments offered by the SSPX are illicit. What a crazy time we live in these days.

NBW said...

SSPX Mass with all it's truth and beauty is considered not legitimate while many Vat II Masses could be considered sacrilegious. When will the madness end?

8b04aa20-d1cc-11e2-aaf0-000bcdcb2996 said...

Hypocrisy!

This makes an excellent point to the other trads who are against the SSPX. What is it about the SSPX that Rome detests so much? Could it perhaps be because they are too close to the truth and they keep bringing the truth to the forefront. Rome/Local bishops want to be able to dictate what you hear, when you hear it and how often.

God Bless! `Sean Quinlan

Tabernacle of David said...

I do not support the irregular position of the SSPX. But this was just bad. Sacraments not valid? Come on! That is ridiculous.

Many within the SSPX might be accused of having a schismatic attitude. But schismatic they are not. This uses both "schismatic" and "irregular". Which is it?

Long-Skirts said...

THE
SECRET

A life of ceaseless
Praise and prayer
In Buckingham County
It's coming there.

No quietism
"perfumed jelly"
Or heresy's works
From a jolly belly.

A new Catholic Seminary
To the worldly - a disgrace
But Christ's priesthood prevails…
In the "secret of God's face"!

Eric said...

No one's right if everybody's wrong.

Gratias said...

I am glad to see an article from California Catholic Daily reproduced here. It is a good site that reflects the troubles the Church has in this beautiful state.

Uncle Claibourne said...

Bravo, New Catholic! Bravo!

David said...

It seems that the majority of Catholics - including priests, Bishops, and laity - do not believe in two fundamental dogmas of the Church, viz, the inerrancy of Holy Scripture and that outside of the Church there is no salvation. The obstinate refusal to assent to these teachings constitutes heresy.

The SSPX (in common with many traditionalists) withhold assent to novel non-infallible teachings that give every appearance of contradicting previous magisterial teaching. Assent to teachings of the magisterium that is mere authenticum can only ever be conditional - prudential - in nature since these facts are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility.

Yet, the sanctions of the Church that should be used to bring heretics to a better mind are used against those Catholics who cannot in good conscience assent to what - failing a definitive clarification by the Church - appears to contradict what has previously been taught infallibly.

These are very strange times that we are living in.

pmckarch said...

Wow!
Illegitimate, schismatic sect, not fulfilling my Sunday obligation etc...

Boy I'm glad it's back to normal again after all that gushy mushey stuff of last year.

(He's just jealous he can't justify doing anything to a seminary but close it)

ben ingledew said...

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Muv said...

Just letting off steam here...

I have fulminated for decades over the debasement of the word gay, now I fume too at the fact that the Ambassadors of the Dark Side want to take possession of the rainbow, that smoking fags is considered worse than a carnal sin, and that faggot has become a term of abuse.

Never mind bundles of sticks, these are faggots. It is great thing to have friends round for faggots - any day but Friday.

http://realrecipes.co.uk/faggots-recipe/

Now I'm off out to do some gardening with the poor crying lady in California on my mind.

JM said...

Sunday obligation? R O F L O L! Given the very small number of Catholics who actually attend a service now, and the almost total silence of the requirement and consequences by all clergy across the board, does the Church now expect people to snap to when it talks about which services actually count? Things are so bad they need to be talking about the reasons people need to attend at all, and THEN maybe get to why certain locales may or may not be satisfactory. A reflexive legalism, too late and too comically misdirected, that reveals the profound cluelessness that reigns.

O Resistente said...

It's the same old story. Our bishops are tender and kind regarding proddies, atheists, buddhists and others. But when it comes to the TLM they are tougher than Saint Ambrose, fully aware of their prerrogatives. In the average diocese, it's a lot more likely to be ostracized for going to a TLM than for going to a Lutheran cult.

Michael Ortiz said...



I agree with the comments on the reaction the bishop has towards the SSPX--it's harsh, and unnecessary. He could say, simply, that the SSPX priests are in an irregular status in regard to the Holy See, and to avoid them until full regularization comes. Period.

David: "Those who are inside can be really out; those who are outside, really in."--St. Augustine

There is NO salvation outside of the Church's dispensation of grace, but the Holy Spirit goes where he will. This is tricky theology, and we must be careful. That being said, holiness is an arduous good, and we need all the help we can get. If one is outside of the visible Church, it is always best to convert, and come in.

Athelstane said...

One thing I'm never going to understand is how a Baptism in a Protestant faith suffices so long as it is in the name of the Trinity, but all of the Sacraments offered by the SSPX are illicit. What a crazy time we live in these days.

In fairness, I'm sure they recognize SSPX baptisms.

Dan Hunter said...

The Diocese Richmond is dead wrong on SSPX Masses not fulfilling the Holy Day Obligation.
What they say is also not Catholic.



The Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church says:


"can. 1248 1. The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day."

This means that if you go to a chapel of the SSPX on the day of precept or the evening before and attend Holy Mass, you fulfill your obligation. The SSPX celebrate in a Catholic Rite.

Dr. Timothy J. Williams said...

The diocesan reaction demonstrates once again just how important the existence of the SSPX really is. And I don't mean just the fact that there would be no TLM anywhere in Richmond unless there was already an SSPX chapel. No, the SSPX gives the Bishop a teaching opportunity (and possibly, a learning opportunity, too) as people in the diocese hear, probably for the first time in a generation, that Sunday Mass is an OBLIGATION. The REAL Catholicism of the SSPX occasionally forces the Conciliar Church to act like the Catholic Church. Good job!

Dr. Timothy J. Williams said...

... now, of course, the Bishop of Richmond will have to issue a follow-up letter to explain to his flock what the phrase "not in communion" means, and, at the same time, make sure that no one gets the impression that it refers to pro-abortion, pro-sodomy "catholic" politicians. I'm sure he can pull it off. That's part of Vatican II Bishop Training Seminars.

Tom McKenna said...

Well, Bp. DiLorenzo has continued the generosity shown by Bp. Sullivan (!) in providing two full parishes staffed by the FSSP.

It's ironic that the diocese is having such a hissy fit over the SSPX presence, when for YEARS, it has allowed Catholics and Episcopalians to jointly worship in a single church building. http://angelqueen.org/2012/11/21/diocese-says-ecumenical-parish-must-hold-separate-communion-services/

Glendon Cheshire said...

What outsiders here on RC should know is that this is the normal level of priestly "competence" in the Richmond diocese. Most of the priests there are formed in four or five years at St. Mary's in Baltimore, a rat's nest, sometimes Mt. St. Mary's (marginally better), and occasionally at Catholic U (ugh), none of which are what you would call "top shelf" seminaries. This priest probably believes he's correct in what he's saying. He also might be conveniently molding his version of truth. Probably both.

I'm from the western side of the diocese of Richmond, though I no longer live there. This sort of mindless, incorrect, and sometimes deliberate FUD and lying on the part of priests of the diocese goes back to the days of Bishop Sullivan, who reigned from 1974 to the mid 2000s. It's not new, and apparently alive and well under Bishop DiLorenzo.

This crap used to be, and probably still is, foisted on regular diocesan parishioners as well. When my old parish underwent wreckovation in the 1990s, FUD and lies were used almost constantly by the pastor, other priests, and Bishop Sullivan.

As soon as I heard the SSPX bought land near Charlottesville, I knew fur was going to fly. The level of discontent in the Richmond diocese is very high, and has been for decades. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Society Mass centers popped up in Roanoke, Lynchburg, and Staunton as a result of them being there.

Fear of getting on the bishop's bad side is little or no deterrent.

David said...

And now it turns out that Pope Francis has effectively confirmed the followers of the false religion of Islam in their errors:

"I also think with affection of those Muslim immigrants who this evening begin the fast of Ramadan, which I trust will bear abundant spiritual fruit. The Church is at your side as you seek a more dignified life for yourselves and your families. To all of you: o’scià!"

Perhaps I just took Inerrant Scripture too seriously when it says that "Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

I guess I stand corrected.

Alphonsus Jr. said...

Don't worry about it, David. Get on board with paragraph 841 of the Catechism of the Conciliar Church:

"841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Bill said...

Am I the only one who thinks it's absurd for any Catholic to say it's wrong to attend SSPX Masses when the post-Vatican-II Church sometimes lets Catholics fulfill their Mass obligation by attending an Eastern Orthodox liturgy? Now and again, it's okay to have communicatio in sacris with schismatic heretics, even when Pius XI already condemns it in Mortalium Animos. But it's not okay to go to Masses offered by priests who are more Catholic than Vatican Modernists who still have the nerve to insist that they're Catholics in full so-called communion"with the Church?

The full/partial communion distinction is another novel distinction that came along during or after Vatican II. Either I'm in communion with the Church, or I'm not in communion with it. There's no scale to tell whether I'm, say, between 50 and 75% Catholic. But if there were on, it would show that schismatic heretics were more Catholic than SSPX priests? The more I hear from the many of the SSPX's critics, the farther their credibility plummets.

Athelstane said...

Hello David,

It seems that the majority of Catholics - including priests, Bishops, and laity - do not believe in two fundamental dogmas of the Church, viz, the inerrancy of Holy Scripture and that outside of the Church there is no salvation.

Well, that's been pretty obvious for some years now. It's a "divisive" teaching, and most priests, even if they believe it, are reluctant to speak up about it...or cage it in softer language.

"I also think with affection of those Muslim immigrants who this evening begin the fast of Ramadan, which I trust will bear abundant spiritual fruit."

I guess I'm left to hope that the H.F. hopes that Ramadan season will lead some to the Catholic Church. Of course, given his initial reaction to Benedict's Regensburg speech, it's a somewhat thin hope...

I suppose some of them think well of him, at any rate.

Athelstane said...

This sort of mindless, incorrect, and sometimes deliberate FUD and lying on the part of priests of the diocese goes back to the days of Bishop Sullivan, who reigned from 1974 to the mid 2000s

Sullivan was of course one of the most (in)famous of the so-called "Jadot bishops," an avowed anti-war progressive, and he had nearly three decades to leave a deep imprint on Richmond - and so he did. It will take a long time to put that diocese on a good footing.

Sullivan was also a graduate of St. Charles in Catonsville in Maryland, and St. Mary's Seminary, back in the early 50's - a distinction also held by William Hughes, who went on to become bishop of Covington. St. Charles closed by 70's, and St. Mary's went on to get an infamous reputation as the "Pink Palace" by the 70's. But it's clear that something was very rotten in these seminaries going back a long way, into the 40's and perhaps even earlier.

It's a reminder that many of our seminaries were, by WW2, turning out very liberal priests. They just had to wait until the 60's show their true colors.

Gus Barbarigo said...

I thought that going to SSPX masses is OK, as long as it is not done in a spirit of rebellion.

I thought that SSPX masses are at least valid, if not both valid and licit.

Any clarification, please?

Dan Hunter said...

Gus,

I have in front of me a letter from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei written to me in response to a question I had asked in February 2009.

The question I posed the Commissio Ecclesia Dei was simply this: "Can a Catholic in good standing fulfill his Sunday and holy day obligation at a Mass at a chapel of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X?

The Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl, the former Secretary, second in charge of the PCED, responded to my query personally, in a letter dated 20 March, 2009, by stating:

"Our response is that it is possible to fulfill the Sunday and holy day obligation by assisting at Masses of priests of the Society of St. Pius X, but until such time as their situation is regularized in the Church, even though they are part of the Church, we cannot recommend your doing so."

Furthermore: In an earlier statement made by the former head of the PCED, His Eminence Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos stated that the Catholic faithful may assist at and fulfill their Sunday obligations at an SSPX Mass if they do so out of a love for the Traditional Latin Mass and not a desire to seperate themselves in their conscience from the Vicar of Christ.

iowapapist said...

In reply to Gus Barbarigo: Monsignor Perle, then President of the Pontificial Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED) was quoted as saying (in 2008) “Concretely, this means that the Masses offered by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit, i.e., contrary to Canon Law." The interviewer (Brian Mershon) stated the following in his summary "...they (PCED) acknowledge there is no sin committed nor canonical penalty incurred resulting from attending Mass at SSPX chapels solely out of the desire to worship according to the 1962 missal and in order to fulfill their Sunday obligation."

Long-Skirts said...

Athelstane said:

"Sullivan was of course one of the most (in)famous of the so-called "Jadot bishops,"... he had nearly three decades to leave a deep imprint on Richmond - and so he did. It will take a long time to put that diocese on a good footing.

Sullivan was also a graduate of St. Charles in Catonsville in Maryland, and St. Mary's Seminary,...St. Mary's went on to get an infamous reputation as the "Pink Palace" by the 70's. But it's clear that something was very rotten in these seminaries"

SULLIVAN'S
O'DIOCESE

My church she is a Catholic
Episcopalian too
It really doesn't matter that
Hank killed some Saints, a few.

He also had oh, several wives
And took some of their heads
But Church of England called him first
That stallion of all beds.

Carthusians, smarthusians
In habits hung around
Quiet not like Campion
Beth brought that braggart down.

And merry, Margaret Clitherow
Oh, what a cheeky dame
Hiding priests behind her skirts
Liz crushed her little game.

Then Thomas More, oh what a bore
They pleaded some did cry,
"Let horny Hank play his bed prank
Just nod and wink an eye!"

But Sully says, "That's long ago.
Those times are of past scene."
For those who are not colored-blind
Our Sully's orange, not green!

And orange is faded blood once red
From martyred by Hank's lust.
Sully, “just” bread has no life
It’s only protestant crust!

http://hamptonroads.com/2012/11/catholic-diocese-blended-va-beach-parish-separate-communion

Bwangi Kilonzo said...

While this whole Diocesan article oozes lack of Charity. Let’s not cloud the truth here. Any Holy Father will tell you, the SSPX has some things to do before they can be regularized.
The truth is, if you are in an irregular situation with the Holy Father, you need to come back to full union/situation with him.
If I see a black kettle but the church says it’s white, then it becomes white in my eyes. There is no way anyone will convince me that the SSPX is in a regular position with the Holy Father and that their masses are licit unless the Holy Father says so.

You cannot be in a scrimmage with the Holy Father and Claim to be right. The Holy Father is always right.

My beef with SSPX is they continue with this crazy crusade they have while the Mortu Proprio is awaiting them to join the fight.

They stand there in Judgment of FSSP and Institute of Christ the King and all Bishops and the Holy Father, as if they were Peter himself.

That is a problem.
I will not be part of it.

Dan Hunter said...

Bwangi,

Of Course most SSPX Masses are illicit.
Rome acknowledges that.

But Rome also acknowledges that an SSPX Mass fulfills the Holy Day obligation.
And that is where the Diocese of Richmond has it wrong.

Rome and current Canon Law allow for SSPX Masses fulfilling the obligation.

I would rather go with Rome than the Diocese of Richmond.

Bwangi Kilonzo said...

Thank you Mr. Dan Hunter for the info.

Could you please back it up?


If there is no issue with SSPX, If all is well with the validity of the Mass and Sacraments and all that, what is all the Hoopla all about? Couldn’t SSPX just go about their business within the Church like Opus Dei or Salesians?

Just another mad Catholic said...

I would rather go to the SSPX than to the shameless wolf who celebrates with sodomites.

I find the society's position regarding supplied jurisdiction plausible given the state of things BUT problematic given that the Pope Emeritus stated that they do not have faculties.

Please Lord have mercy on us and give us faithful shepherds.

Long-Skirts said...

Just another mad Catholic said:

"Please Lord have mercy on us and give us faithful shepherds."

I HAVE!!!

Love,
God

Dan Hunter said...

Bwangi,

I already backed it up a few posts ago.
But here it is again:


I have in front of me a letter from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei written to me in response to a question I had asked in February 2009.

The question I posed the Commissio Ecclesia Dei was simply this: "Can a Catholic in good standing fulfill his Sunday and holy day obligation at a Mass at a chapel of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X?

The Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl, the former Secretary, second in charge of the PCED, responded to my query personally, in a letter dated 20 March, 2009, by stating:

"Our response is that it is possible to fulfill the Sunday and holy day obligation by assisting at Masses of priests of the Society of St. Pius X, but until such time as their situation is regularized in the Church, even though they are part of the Church, we cannot recommend your doing so."

Furthermore: In an earlier statement made by the former head of the PCED, His Eminence Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos stated that the Catholic faithful may assist at and fulfill their Sunday obligations at an SSPX Mass if they do so out of a love for the Traditional Latin Mass and not a desire to seperate themselves in their conscience from the Vicar of Christ.

Aloysius Gonzaga said...

to Dan Hunter:

Can you make those letters available on the Internet or by email? Thank you.

UnamSanctam said...

Bwangi Kilonzo:

Just google Sunday Obligation, Perl, SSPX.

Of course their Masses are valid! They are validly ordained Catholic priests.

gtaylor said...

...The Pope is always right"..... he is not! That is anti-catholic drivel.
The pope is the Vicar of Christ and is there to lead us in the faith, whether he chooses to do so is a free gift of God. Popes can be sinners just like the rest of us. Don't start canonising them when they are still breathing. Pray for him instead.

JM said...

"The Holy Father is always right."

Baloney. This is closer to Mormonism, and even it teaches that "A prophet is a prophet only when acting as such." The Pope is only protected from error in ex cathedra maters, and when in line with conciliar creeds. Otherwise, he can be wildly wrong. And often is. This ultramontanism is a curse that ironically is now used to confirm us in Modernist ideas. Ideal Ward would be experiencing cognitive dissonance.

Richmond Catholic said...

http://richmondcatholic.wordpress.com/

Angelo said...

Of course something is wrong when those who praise Ecumenism include everyone in it, Jew, Protestant, Muslim Pagans, Atheists ect... But reject Traditionalists. I don't understand how they cannot see their own error, when their error is as bright as day. They are in grave violation of Vatican ll. But then these modernists reject the whole Council and have replaced it with their own ideas and call it Vatican ll. They are lying to themselves, to God and to God's Church. These cannot be disciplined by Rome, as most of those in Rome are practicing the same heresy. In condemning these modernist errors, they would have to condemn themselves first. Its understandable that they will not accept Traditionalists, as Trads clearly point out their heresies to their faces. And these hypocrites don't like it.

Ben said...

JM said: ‘The Pope is only protected from error in ex cathedra matters, and when in line with conciliar creeds. Otherwise, he can be wildly wrong. And often is.’

While obviously not every magisterial statement is infallible, the Church has taught that papal teachings which are not ex cathedra are still protected by the Holy Spirit and call for assent.

First, for some overall context, from Vatican I, ‘Pastor Aeternus’: ‘…jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful…are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church…This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.’

This teaching precedes the dogma of papal infallibility and so doesn’t depend on it. When the popes give ordinary teaching in faith and morals it’s obvious that they intend to command obedience, so all ‘are bound to submit’.

St Pius X in ‘Praestantia Scripturae’ taught it was a grave sin even to disobey ‘the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff’: ‘…we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions...’

Ven. Pius XII taught in ‘Humani Generis’: ‘Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”…’

Vatican II was in full continuity with all this when it taught in ‘Lumen Gentium’: ‘…religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.’

The CDF spelt out in ‘Donum Veritatis’ the reason we must adhere to the ordinary magisterium: ‘Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and in a particular way, to the Roman Pontiff as Pastor of the whole Church, when exercising their ordinary Magisterium, even should this not issue in an infallible definition...

‘All acts of the Magisterium derive from the same source, that is, from Christ who desires that His People walk in the entire truth. For this same reason, magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, even if they are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful.

‘…When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies…But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church’s Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission.

‘…[In] the case of the theologian who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him well-founded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching…Such a disagreement could not be justified if it were based solely upon the fact that the validity of the given teaching is not evident or upon the opinion that the opposite position would be the more probable.’

Dr. Timothy J. Williams said...

The documents of Vatican II, the Magisterium, Papal Infallibility, obedience... The bizarre reality of the whole SSPX situation is that – notwithstanding the Society's own criticisms of the Council and the last 50 years – it is the SSPX that upholds MORE of the Catholic Faith that is expressed in the Council documents than Müller or any of the critics of the Society. Lefebvre himself told me he accepted more than 90% of what came out of Vatican II. It is highly doubtful that most bishops today, based on their actions, show anywhere near that level of consent. In other words, if you were going to require a statement of submission or the signing of a "doctrinal statement" from every bishop in the world who has taught or done something less than licit in the past fifty years, Bishop Fellay would have to be near the bottom of the list!

UnamSanctam said...

Ben:

Thank you for all those references, which are certainly very interesting.

How then would you react to the Belgian Bishops who issued a catechism in the 1970's which included drawings to help you sexually molest a child?

How would you react to manifest heresy when taught by a Bishop, or a serious scandal given even by a Pope?

How would you react to a declaration of the American Bishops (mid-late 1960's) that the Mass is a remembrance meal and a priest a mere presider over that meal?

Just curious.


Benedict Carter

Bwangi Kilonzo said...

@ UnamSanctam


Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that only the Holy Father is protected by the Holy Ghost from error

Throckmorton P. said...

Same garbage—schismatic, not Catholic—was spouted by the Newark, NJ Archdiocese when the Society established a chapel in North Caldwell, NJ. These canards were printed in two (that I saw) and perhaps more of the local parish bulletins. I assume the directive came from the chancery as the wording was similar. But, the next winter the pastor of one of these churches donated a nativity set to the chapel.

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines”, Ralph Waldo Emerson, or in this case church bureaucrats.

Bwangi Kilonzo said...

Bottom line, Charity begins at Home. This is what Catholic’s need to learn.

JM said...



"a non-irreformable magisterial teaching…"

Like what? Ordination of women? The Dignity ministry? A Protestant interpretation of transubstantiation. These things are all tolerated now, so I would argue we hardly ever have non-irreformable teachings these days. That sort of language is only now used by SSPX types, and they are the personas no grata now. How ironic: The demand is for unquestioning loyalty to liberal ideas. The SSPX simply has it right. You have to stand logic on its head to get around that, and insist on sheeple-ism.

Long-Skirts said...

Dan Hunter said:

"His Eminence Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos stated that the Catholic faithful may assist at and fulfill their Sunday obligations at an SSPX Mass if they do so out of a love for the Traditional Latin Mass and not a desire to seperate themselves in their conscience from the Vicar of Christ."

Just another mad Catholic said:

"Please Lord have mercy on us and give us faithful shepherds."

SACRED
HEART
BYPASS

He da man Noah
Built him an Ark
Most guys mocked -
Them drowned in dark.

Moses da man
Sent to free -
Lazy dogs -
To calf, bent knee.

Rich man Job
His bling all glistened
When him got poor
No brother listened.

When man be weak
To deal da blow
God sent Judy
To behead gang foe.

Then them Three Kings
Bishop-like
Herod's dudes
Done killed each tyke.

Brother Baptist to
Christ led -
Spoke bad truths
Then lost him head.

And there be Jesus
I AM...He
Them cardinal chiefs
Done crucifee

But He done rose
All glorified
Him Body gone
But theys denied.

It be like now
Them chiefs is spotted -
Bishops, Cardinals
Clogged carotid…

But Pie-to-the-Fifth
Perpetuitied the Mass -
And we gots da Bishops
The Church's bypass!

UnamSanctam said...

"Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that only the Holy Father is protected by the Holy Ghost from error."

You are wrong I believe. The Holy Father is protected from error only when teaching on a matter of faith or morals.

Ben said...

Unam Sanctam:

The references I quote from ‘Donum Veritatis’ do give leeway for some very cautious disagreement from non-infallible teaching – if it is clear the teaching is non-infallible, and a theologian has ‘reasons which appear to him well founded’ for withholding assent (reasons amounting to more than simply a greater probability).

This leeway wasn’t simply a new teaching, but spelt out the common pre-conciliar theological understanding, so the earlier magisterial teachings I quote would have been given with this understanding in mind. Indeed, in the debates over ‘Lumen Gentium’ it was suggested that this accepted possibility of withholding assent in extraordinary cases be included in the text, but it was ruled that this was unnecessary.

My point to JM wasn’t that obedience to every teaching and command of the pope must be unconditional and absolute, but that such teachings and commands have at least the presumption of divine assistance and the requirement of obedience. JM’s post really left no intermediate ground between infallible dogma, and no authority at all.

This ‘intermediate ground’ is surely why the Holy See does not require of the SSPX acceptance of every last word of Vatican II, yet on the other hand insists on an overall attitude of respect, submission, openness to further research, with no wholesale rejection. In other words, disagreement must be the exception not the rule.

Concerning the cases you mention, none of them involve infallibility (and not all of them actually involve any call to obedience), so there is at least the possibility of legitimate non-adherence if one is certain that obedience would be wrong. Popes (like Alexander VI) don’t have to be imitated or agreed with when they clearly give scandal by their actions. Also, to enjoy divine assistance and require obedience, Bishops must be ‘teaching in communion with the Successor of Peter’, and in any case have less authority than the pope. One doesn’t have an equal obligation to the teachings of other bishops as to one’s own bishop.

Still, it seems to me there is sometimes a great readiness to find ‘contradictions’ between present and past teaching, when a little bit of effort would show the possibility of harmonization. (Sometimes, admittedly, more effort is needed than other times.) This harmonization of apparently conflicting authorities was what St Thomas did all the time, and Catholic Faith is impossible without it.

JM:

All the examples you mention (women’s ordination, Dignity, Protestant Eucharistic beliefs) are clearly condemned by the Holy See. And the post-conciliar Magisterium upholds numerous ‘irreformable’ teachings.

Should more be done to stamp out dissent? Are numerous bishops not fully in line with the Holy See? Are there countless evils in the Church (as at many times through history)? One can agree with these things without departing in the slightest from the obedience due to the Successor of Peter.

Sheeple-ism? Yes, actually, all human beings are meant to be the sheep of Christ and of his Vicar the Roman Pontiff. Sometimes what seems to us ‘logical’ has to give way to trust in the Holy Spirit: human reason submits to faith.

Ben said...

Bwangi Kilonzo: “Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that only the Holy Father is protected by the Holy Ghost from error.”

Unam Sanctam: “You are wrong I believe. The Holy Father is protected from error only when teaching on a matter of faith or morals.”

Actually, Bishops teaching in communion with the Pope are also protected by the Holy Ghost from error, and magisterial decisions in matters of discipline (not just faith and morals) are also protected – it’s just that the protection isn’t infallibly given to every teaching and decision in every aspect.

Repeating the quotes from ‘Donum Veritatis’ of the CDF: ‘Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and in a particular way, to the Roman Pontiff as Pastor of the whole Church, when exercising their ordinary Magisterium, even should this not issue in an infallible definition...

‘…magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, even if they are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful.’

We need to get used to this intermediate level of protection, rather than 'infallible or nothing'.

Barbara said...

The faithful lay Catholic shouldn't need to do intellectual acrobatics to trust the Pope and the hierarchy who are bound by their state to pass on the truth of the FAITH without ambiguity. It would appear that most Catholics don't read excellent blogs like Rorate Caeli or we wouldn't be in this mess.
The mystery and wonder of the faith remain to be grasped at both the heart and head levels (faith and reason and all that jazz)...and for this true scholarly men of God are needed, who actually know Jesus Christ, to guide the flock in experiencing the sweet reality of Our Lord, the very reason for our existence and joy of every struggle. Otherwise what's the point? All the rest is BORING and DISTRACTION - things that the mainstream, man-centered, contrived postconciliar oh so ecumenical Church (certainly what comes out of Rome nowadays for the most ) are very good at. It’s quite unsettling --- frightening…

You wonder what Our Lord went through His Incarnation, Passion, Death and Resurrection for when you hear the likes of "Happy Ramadan " from the highest authorities in the Church. That to boot to a patently anti-Catholic – hate- filled, man-made religion! I mean why did Our Divine Master go to all that trouble? Why did Our Good Lord bother so much about us and be beaten to death in a pulp – for what? Where is the personal love and gratitude to Our Glorious Redeemer for His mighty and merciful work?
It makes you sick at heart . First because our shepherds promote this ecumenical guff. Second, because the flock have become used to hearing it from them so that this kind of false ecumenism has become like an article of faith. Third, the indifference of even Traditional lay faithful and the hierarchy in general in hearing such blasphemy . And it is. Confusion reigns. Thank goodness for the reality of the FSSPX and all the traditional fraternities that came from this Society firmly holding onto Tradition. I bet a zillion dollars you won’t hear them ever say “Happy Ramadan!” or something similar. Our Lord has not abandoned His flock. Though I personally am getting to the point that, selfishly, I wish He would hasten His return. Lord forgive me - I probably don’t even know what I’m yammering about…

Stephen Band said...

Ben,

It's refreshing to read balanced analyses like yours. The various scandalous situations in The Church today and the issues raised by the SSPX divide the faithful into opposing extremes more often than not, and it's difficult to know where to stand.

7fbc6254-eb65-11e2-85d7-000bcdcb471e said...

Yes, that very Sunday after these decisions were rendered, not one of our *priests* (in L.A) said a word about it, just carrying on with their usual insipid speeches (I won't demean the word homily by attaching it to what we hear in church), the disconnected fluff supposedly intended to inspire one of the love of God, which does neither by the way.

A golden opportunity to speak on moral matters which affect the lives of the Faithful and society at large was just summarily tossed aside. The very silence on the subject tells the Faithful the parish is not interested in real Catholicism, just the made-up stuff of the liberal agenda.

Matt