Responses from THE PONTIFICAL CONGREGATION OF BISHOPS, and
THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGISLATIVE TEXTS
(Excerpts from responses to a letter from the Very Reverend Norbert Brunner, Bishop of Sion, Switzerland, to the Prefect for the Congregation of Bishops, requesting clarifications regarding status of the followers of Monsignor Lefebvre. The responses are dated October 31, 1996.) Response of the Pontifical Congregation of Bishops:
- ...The bishops consecrated on June 30th, 1988, by Archbishop Lefebvre are validly consecrated, but punished with the penalty of excommunication according to...canon 1382 for having received episcopal consecration without a papal mandate.
- ...as to the priests ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre whilst he was only suspensus a divinis, they did not incur excommunication, but are...classed as acephalous priests (headless priests, that is, without a leader), according to canon 265, and forbidden any "munus vel aliud sacrum ministerium" as long as they remain without incardination.
- ...The sacraments (of Baptism, the Eucharist and the anointing of the sick) administered illicitly by these priests are valid, although illicit.
- ...Participation in their services is objectively illicit because they are not performed in full communion with the Church, and because they are a source of grave scandal and division in the ecclesial community.
- ...Assistance of the Faithful is not permitted, save in cases of real necessity.
- ...Those who participate occasionally and without the intention to adhere formally to the positions of the Lefebvrist movement towards the Holy Father do not incur the penalty of excommunication.
Response of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts
- ...The schismatic act which provoked the Motu Proprio and the Decree achieved nothing other than bringing to term, in a very visible and indisputable manner – by an act of grievous disobedience against the Roman Pontiff — an ongoing separation from hierarchical communion. As long as there is no change leading to the restoration of this "indispensable communion, the whole Lefebrist movement must be considered as schismatic, in view of the formal declaration of the supreme authority.
- ...According to para.5c of the Motu proprio, an excommunication latae sententiae for schism is incurred by those who "formally adhere" to this schismatic movement. According to this Pontifical Council, such adherence must imply two complementary elements:
- ...The first is by nature internal, consisting in a willful and conscious participation in the essence of the schism, namely to opt for the disciples of Lefebvre in such a way that this choice supersedes one's obedience to the Pope (habitually, such an attitude becomes rooted in taking a stand against the Magisterium of the Church).
- ...The second is external: the exteriorization of this choice. The most obvious sign of this will be exclusive participation at Lefebvrist services, without attending any liturgical functions of the Catholic Church.
- ...The first is by nature internal, consisting in a willful and conscious participation in the essence of the schism, namely to opt for the disciples of Lefebvre in such a way that this choice supersedes one's obedience to the Pope (habitually, such an attitude becomes rooted in taking a stand against the Magisterium of the Church).
Source: http://www.latin–mass.org/pontifical.html
"ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission's Msgr Camille Perl
Reply to F. John Loughnan
Pontificia Commissio "Ecclesia Dei"N. 343/98
Rome, 27 October 1998
Mr. F. John Loughnan
10 Glendale Drive
Chirnside Park, Vic. 3116
AUSTRALIA
Dear Mr Loughnan We wish to acknowledge receipt of your document, Statements and Allegations Made By Some Australian Members of The Society of St. Pius X, which you sent to His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger for evaluation. It has been transmitted to this Pontifical Commission as dealing with matters that come within our particular competence.
First of all, we thank God that you have been able to be sufficiently objective about the claims of the Society of St. Pius X to leave it and return to full communion with the Church. We recognize that this has been a long journey for you and your wife and we trust that all that you have experienced has helped you to be a better Catholic, aware of the wounds of the Church in its members on earth, but even more conscious of its indefectibility.
You will have noted that we are that very Pontifical Commission referred to in Father Jean Violette's letter to you of 21 January 1995 as made up of "liberals, modernists who have infiltrated the positions of authority in the Church and who are using their authority to do away with Tradition..." We trust that you will now understand that this is not a fair description of us or of our often difficult and delicate work.
We will now attempt to address ourselves to your questions in the order in which you have raised them.
- The Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church. In an Apostolic Letter which he issued motu proprio (on his own initiative) he declared that Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. (Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382).
Those mentioned above who are still living and have not asked pardon from the Church for the ill which they have caused are still under the censure of excommunication.
- While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis, that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265). In the strict sense there are no "lay members" of the Society of St. Pius X, only those who frequent their Masses and receive the sacraments from them.
While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 thatthe SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass,and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith.
It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.
- Thus far the Church has not officially declared what constitutes "formal adherence to the schism " inaugurated by the late Archbishop Lefebvre (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), but the Code of Canon Law defines schism as " refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (canon 751). The above citation together with the other documentation which you have included in your dossier and your own exchange of correspondence with Father Violette clearly indicate the extent to which many in authority in the Society of St. Pius X corroborate that definition.
- It may still be difficult to characterize the entire Society of St. Pius X, but the documentation which you have submitted witnesses to a consistent condemnation of the new Mass, the Pope and anyone who disagrees with the authorities of the Society in the smallest degree. Such behaviour is not consistent with the practice of the Catholic faith.
- We reiterate what we stated above: "The Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church." Communion with him is a fundamental, non–negotiable hallmark of Catholicism which is not determined by those who set themselves up to judge him, but by the Pope himself (cf. Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium#22–25).
- The question of the doctrine held by the late Father Leonard Feeney is a complex one. He died in full communion with the Church and many of his former disciples are also now in full communion while some are not. We do not judge it opportune to enter into this question.
- You want to know how authoritative our responses are. We must indicate to you that this letter accurately reflects the practice and pastoral solicitude of this Pontifical Commission, but it is not an official declaration of the Holy See. Those declarations are fundamentally limited to Quattuor abhinc annos of 3 October 1984 and Ecclesia Dei of 2 July 1988, both of which were published in the Acta Apostolicæ Sedis. The Holy Father does not ordinarily make detailed statements on very specific questions such as those which you have submitted. He entrusts such responses to the various dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which have competence in particular areas. With regard to the matters which you have brought up, the competence belongs to this Pontifical Commission.
- The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts rules primarily on the interpretation of the law. Any more authoritative response to your questions than the one we have given would be more likely to come from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The fact that that Congregation has transmitted your dossier to us indicates that at this time our response should be sufficient. Statements of dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which touch on faith and morals are not considered infallible, but should be taken as norms of moral certitude.
- Our response to your questions may be made public.
"ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission's Msgr Camille Perl
Reply to unknown person #1, Nov. 7, 2001
- The substance is revealed in reply of Sept. 2002.
"ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission's Msgr Camille Perl
Part of Reply to unknown person #2, Apr. 15, 2002*
- Pontificia Commissio Ecclesia Dei [Trans.] Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei Q: Un catholique peut–it assister et communier la dimanche à une messe célebrée par un prêtre de la Fraternité Saint–Pie X ou d'une commaunauté dans la mouvance de cette Fraternité? May a Catholic attend Mass and receive communion on Sunday at a Mass celebrated by a priest of the FSSPX or of a community in the movement of the FSSPX? R: Non, La célébration de la Sainte Messe doit se faire en communion avec l'Eglise, avec le Pape et avec l'êveque du leu. L'assistance à des messes célébrées par des prêtres qui ne sont justement pas en union avec l'Église, n'est permise que dans des situation extraordinaires, où l'accès a une messe célébrée en union avec l'Église est impossible. Or, les prêtres de la Fraternité Saint–Pie X ne sont pas en union avec l'Église a cause de leur adhésion au schisme que Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre a provoqué en ordonnant des évêques contre la vononté du Pape, qui a qualifié cet acte accompli le 30 juin 1988 d'acte schismatique (Motu Proprio "Ecclesia Dei" du 2 julliet 1988, n° 3–4) No. A celebration of Holy Mass should be done in communion with the Church and with the Pope, and with the bishop of the place (Nick, this translation assumes you meant "du lieu" for "du leu." I do not know the word "leu." I think we may have a typo here.) The celebration of the Mass should be done by a priest who is in union with the Church. Attendance at Masses celebrated by other priests is permitted only where access to a Mass celebrated by a priest in union with the Church is impossible. Now, the priests of the FSSPX are not in union with the Church because of their adherence to the schism of Archbishop LeFebvre who provoked the schism by his ordination of some bishops contrary to the will of the Pope, who has called the act on 30 June 1988 as schismatic. Etc. Etc. Etc. Negative, negative, negative. Gordon Harwood. Atlanta. GA
"ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission's Msgr Camille Perl
Second Reply to unknown person #1, Sept. 27, 2002
- From 15th December 2002 REMNANT Dear Mr. ....... We wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 14 August 2002 addressed to His Eminence Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos along with the enclosures. In our letter to you of 7 November 2001 we provided you with important information about the status of the Society of St. Pius X according to the law of the Church and told you that we cannot recommend your frequenting their chapels, but you indicate that you are not satisfied with our responses and have raised three more specific questions. We will deal with them in logical order. 1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X. 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 attendance at such a Mass were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin. 3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at mass could be justified.... Sincerely yours in Christ, Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl Secretary
"ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission's Msgr Camille Perl
Letter to Una Voce America
Letter by Msgr. Perl regarding SSPX Masses Contact 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.
- ) 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.
- ) Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church.
- 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment