Skip to main content

Archbishop Vigano urges Catholics to offer homes for Mass: SSPX vs. Anti-SSPX comment section discussion & Q: “Can I go to Mass at an SSPX chapel?” - Fr. Z's Blog

https://www.cal-catholic.com/archbishop-vigano-urges-catholics-to-offer-homes-for-mass/

Gabe October 5, 2021 at 3:18 pm - Reply

Won’t this then place these priests and faithful in the same position as SSPX and their adherents?

…”morally illicit for the faithful to participate in” SSPX Masses “unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing” and added that not being able to assist at a Tridentine Mass “is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses.”[14] The PCED explained that although the ordinations of SSPX priests by SSPX bishops are valid, SSPX priests are prohibited from exercising a priestly function because SSPX priests are not incardinated into local diocese or religious institutes which are in full communion with the Catholic Church. The PCED also explained that the Masses celebrated by SSPX priests are valid but illicit, and that Penance and Matrimony by SSPX priests are invalid because SSPX priests lack conferred faculties.[c]

  • No more TLM October 5, 2021 at 6:54 pm - Reply

    Except that now Pope Francis has given SSPX priests faculties to absolve Catholics from sin and to witness Catholic marriages.

    But, yes, Roman Catholic priests who would celebrate Mass without having the proper faculties would be committing a schismatic act.

    1
    11
    • No more TLM October 6, 2021 at 12:21 pm - Reply

      Amazing that my post stating only facts gets so many down votes.

      People here don’t like the truth, and some who don’t like the truth don’t know how ignorant they are.

      4
      9
      • cton October 6, 2021 at 12:43 pm - Reply

        They thumbs down Scripture here.

        2
        1
    • cton October 7, 2021 at 2:16 am - Reply

      It is not correct to say that the Pope has given SSPX priests faculties to witness Catholic marriages.
      He has asked bishops to assign a priest to “witness” these marriages. The diocesan priest or another priest assigned as a delegate receives the consent of the parties. If that cannot be done, he has asked bishops to give faculties to an SSPX priest. So it is the bishop who does that not the Pope.
      I have not heard whether anyone has done this. Maybe some of those who attend SSPX chapels will know.

      https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/rc_com_ecclsdei_doc_20170327_lettera-presuli_en.html

  • PCEDMan October 6, 2021 at 2:13 pm - Reply

    You just cited the PCED document that makes clear that SSPX Masses are both valid and licit under the conditions stated.

    • Anonymous October 6, 2021 at 2:53 pm - Reply

      They are not licit. They are valid.

      • PCEDMan October 6, 2021 at 4:51 pm - Reply

        Wrong. Read the PCED document. Not just valid, but LICIT for attendance under the conditions stated.

        Don’t just parrot what you have heard. Read the documents. They are not hastily or haphazardly written.

        …..”UNLESS”….

        1
        1
        • jon October 6, 2021 at 9:29 pm

          Both “Gabe” and “Anonymous” are correct. According to the Letter written by Msgr. Camille Perl in September 1995, the Masses offered by the beloved SSPX are considered “morally illicit for the faithful to participate in…unless they [the faithful] are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2). The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called ‘Tridentine’ Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses.”

          Seven years later, Msgr. Perl reiterates his words through another Letter dated April 2002 where he writes: “Holy Mass must be offered in communion with the Church, the Pope and the local Bishop. Attendance at Masses offered by priests who are not in union with the Church is allowed only in extraordinary circumstances, when access to a Mass offered in union with the Church is impossible. Now, the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are not in union with the Church because of their adhesion to the schism that Archbishop Lefebvre created when consecrating bishops against the will of the Pope, who called this act, accomplished on June 30, 1988, a schismatic act.”

          1
          2
        • smh October 6, 2021 at 11:10 pm

          Licit for attendance? What do you think licit means?

        • PCEDMan October 8, 2021 at 5:13 pm

          “As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.”

          I don’t know the folks here but smh is proposing a sedevacantist position, denying the faculties issued by Pope Francis, not to mention the proper interpretation of the older outdated but accurate statement by Pope Benedict which if accepted as smh does, means St Alphonse Ligouri’s Redemptorists also spent 17 years administering “illicit” Sacraments.

          jon is wrong for similar reasons. Older decisions must be informed by the more recent, and the more recent are uttered directly by the Pope. And in fact the older decisions also approve of assistance at SSPX Mass: On 27th September 2002, quoted and reaffirmed on 18th January 2003, the Holy See, through the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Mgr Camille Perl stated that ‘In the strict sense you may fulfil your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X.’ This of course agrees fully with the text I referred to above which the others are absurdly misapplying.

          A canonical case proves the point. In 1991 Bishop Joseph Ferrario of Honolulu declared six lay Catholics excommunicated on grounds of schism for having procured the services of an SSPX bishop to administer confirmation. These appealed to the Holy See. Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith nullified that decision. This is sometimes referred to as the “Hawaii 6 case”.

        • smh October 8, 2021 at 6:53 pm

          The SSPX are not sedevacantists.
          You misinterpret everything.

        • ct October 8, 2021 at 7:07 pm

          PCEDMan, the SSPX is not an order in the Catholic Church. It just isn’t. They are priests who have a valid ordination but they are rogue.
          The Popes have been very merciful to them. The Catholic Church would like them to reconcile but the SSPX refuses.
          You get confused by the mercy given them.
          Just because someone is nice to them doesn’t mean they are not wrong.

        • jon October 8, 2021 at 7:10 pm

          PCEDMan is wrong. It was purely out of mercy that Pope Francis has allowed confessions heard by the beloved SSPX as well as nuptial Masses to be licit. But nothing more. All other exercise of ministry apart from those two are illicit. This means that baptisms, confirmations, regular Masses, anointings of the sick, ordinations, while a bishop or a priest who is in union with the Church, are available are illicit, unlawful.

          Moreover, misquoting Perl as PCEDMan has just done is disingenuous. The “strict sense” that Perl mentions in his letter is precisely “when access to a Mass offered in union with the Church is impossible.” Otherwise people you cannot lawfully fulfill your Sunday obligation at a Mass offered by the beloved SSPX. You cannot.

          Lastly, the Canonical case does not prove your point. Very unlikely that lay folks will be excommunicated for procuring the services of the beloved SSPX, not because such an action isn’t wrong, but because the beloved SSPX should have had the charity and the obedience to inform these folks of the Canonical implications of being given the sacraments unlawfully by them. The blame rests on the minister, not necessarily the laypeople.

        • PCEDMan October 9, 2021 at 7:58 am

          smh: I didn’t say the SSPX was sedevacantist. I said you are nearly presenting a sedevacantist position.

          Your position denies the ongoing work of the Pope as if he does not exist.

          jon: The fact that the Pope was merciful may describe WHY he did what he did…but he did it nonetheless, which is what you deny. Your position here goes beyond the Pope and read carefully, crowds ever closer to schism itself for denying what the Pope did in his mercy.

          Your position can be likened to denying absolution granted by a priest because he gave it in mercy and not in judgment.

          Again, “unless” is the operative word in the original statement and Pope Francis has gone on to clarify what is obviously {I’ve stated it as such} the irregular position of the SSPX. In fact, so much so that one can quite frankly say that the Pope has “irregularly regularized” the SSPX, which he in his office has the authority to do. And which you fellows deny, thus as I said, crowding and tending toward both a form of sedevacantism and/or schism yourselves.

          2
          1
        • jon October 9, 2021 at 2:03 pm

          PCEDMan’s charge that folks like me are “sedevacantist” shows that he hasn’t read carefully our comments, that he doesn’t understand clearly the issues.

          The problem with PCEDMan’s position is that he wants Msgr. Perl’s letter, and the Pope’s generosity, to mean outside and beyond what Perl and the Pope intend. Namely, the Church has given recognition only to the confessions and the nuptial Masses of the beloved SSPX, nothing more. Attendance at Masses of the SSPX is only allowed if access to Masses offered by a priest in union with the Church is impossible. Anything beyond that is wrongful.

          The Pope has not “irregularly regularized” the beloved SSPX. That’s pure hogwash. That’s what the beloved SSPX and their fans would like you to believe. Bottom line folks: Do fulfill your Sunday obligation with the beloved SSPX unless access to Mass that’s in union with the Church is impossible.

      • PCEDMan October 7, 2021 at 10:56 am - Reply

        Folks, READ the letter.

        They are illicit UNLESS and the conditions are set forth by which if met then makes that Mass licit. Most {as folks have done here} skip right over the last half of the sentence and ignore what it says. UNLESS is the operative word for the conditions set forth in the last half of the sentence. Meet the conditions and they are not only valid but licit as well. Don’t meet the conditions and they are merely valid, but still illicit.

        Any other interpretation is gibberish, a preconceived notion imposed on and in contradiction to the language of the response. As Father John Zuhlsdorf has noted many times, the faithful may meet their Mass obligation at SSPX Masses and the PCED {which he worked for for some years} always operated with this in mind.

        Irregularity still remains, just as it did for Saint Alphonsus Liguori who ran his priestly society for 17 years before receiving Papal approval.

        1
        2
        • jon October 7, 2021 at 3:14 pm

          PCED, we did read the Letter (in fact I posted the pertinent quote above) and because there are significantly more parishes with Masses offered by priests in communion with the Church, going to a Mass offered by the beloved SSPX would still be illicit, unlawful. Nobody is being impeded from going to a Mass in the Ordinary Form. Most if not all Californians for instance can meet their Sunday obligation therein. In other words the conditions set forth in the Letter are not met, therefore a Mass offered by the beloved SSPX is still illicit.

          1
          1
        • smh October 7, 2021 at 4:11 pm

          No Mass said by a member of the SSPX is licit. They are all illicit. Suspended priests are not supposed to say public Masses.
          You are confusing whether it is licit for a layperson to attend one with whether the Mass itself is licit.

          1
          2
        • PCEDMan October 9, 2021 at 10:56 am

          jon’s post perfectly describes the point I have made here.

          He denies the legitimate act of interior reflection of those who assist at SSPX Masses as “contrived” while literally no better word can be used to describe his own arbitrary personal judgment of language provided by the Church in situations where the Church has and still DOES allow assistance at SSPX Masses.

          Truly, no better admonition can be provided in warning at this sort of approach than: “Judge not, that you may not be judged, For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.” St Mt 7:1,2 and truly, one must take also another call to heart found in John 7:24
          “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge just judgment.”

          As we see here, the folks pick and toss out the words of the Popes arbitrarily, apparently caring not a whit for the Popes nor for the agents of the Popes, but rather for their own private judgments.

          But to know avail.

          The Catholic Church speaks through the Popes and guards the position of the SSPX even in the current condition of irregularity, providing a judgment of its own against those that disparage the Society.

          1
          1
        • jon October 9, 2021 at 2:17 pm

          PCEDMan you are still wrong. With the aid of the clear statements by Msgr. Perl (which fans of the beloved SSPX are fond of twisting and misconstruing) one can definitely say that the Church does not allow a Catholic to fulfill his/her Sunday obligation by going to a Mass by the beloved SSPX “unless access to a Mass offered in union with the Church is impossible” to that same Catholic (quotation from Perl). Msgr. Perl in that quotation has articulated the only condition by which a Catholic in a “strict sense” can fulfill his/her Sunday obligation with the beloved SSPX. PCEDMan and the beloved SSPX seem to love to twist and perform linguistic gymnastics with poor Msgr. Perl’s words, which otherwise are very clear. Msgr. Perl seemed to know this and at one point sounded exasperated and frustrated in one of his replies: “We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass [by the SSPX] and have explained the reason why.”

      • PCEDMan October 7, 2021 at 6:50 pm - Reply

        I’ll end with this.

        You are wrong.

        The letter states the dependent qualifications involve “physical or moral” impediments. Those are not juridically imposed. They are assessed by the faithful attending. There are no definitions in canon law stating otherwise. So you are simply making up what you want to believe, denying the clear language of the letter itself.

        You are imposing your own opinions on the language of the governing document. As such, you tend toward schism itself, as the letter was issued by an agent of the Pope. You say what the Church does not say.

        It’s that simple.

        1
        1
        • smh October 8, 2021 at 12:49 am

          https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/sspx-masses-14267
          As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.
          https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html

        • jon October 8, 2021 at 9:48 am

          PCEDMan is still wrong. His criterion that such impediment is “assessed by the faithful” is not absolute, because Msgr. Perl’s April 2002 Letter also expresses what that condition might look like, namely, “when access to a Mass offered in union with the Church is impossible.” Get that people, when access to a Mass offered by a priest in union with the Church is “impossible.” With our advanced means of transport and technology these days, access to a Mass that’s validly and licitly offered is more often that not, possible. Possible. Whatever “impediments” that someone who is hell-bent into going to a Mass by the beloved SSPX presents would be, more often than not, contrived. Contrived.

    • PCEDMan October 8, 2021 at 5:36 pm - Reply

      For those who may still question. SSPX was permitted {when private Masses were allowed!} to say Mass at St Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Yes…St Peter’s.

      Last I checked they don’t allow Methodists or Pentecostals to hold services or…illicit Masses to be said there.

      https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/08/sspx-priest-celebrates-mass-in-saint.html

      • ct October 8, 2021 at 6:51 pm - Reply

        PCEDMan, according to your source, a group led by an SSPX priest attended Mass at the altar of St. Pius X, 8 years ago It does not say that the SSPX priest said the Mass, but even if he did, it was obviously a “graciously” given permission due to the centennial of St. Pius X death.
        This changes nothing.
        All SSPX priests are suspended. Their Masses are illicit.
        The situation is confusing and I have always found the SSPX to be less than candid about their real status.

        • PCEDMan October 9, 2021 at 3:59 pm

          ct: I’m sorry. I should have been more clear. Regarding the Mass referenced, yes, it was a priest of the SSPX.* It was Fr. Michel Sivry then from Noisy-le-Grand, France saying Mass for a pilgrimage group. And you are of course right. The permission was just as you say…”obviously a ‘graciously’ given permission”. To be sure, ALL permissions at St Peter’s are “graciously given”! (and after the sad suppression of Masses at St Peter’s, today even more “graciously given”!)

          “Graciously give” of course is what the Church does. Every Mass said at St Peter’s by every diocesan (Novus Ordo) or FSSP or ICKSP priest is “graciously given”! They ALL are and always have been! :)

          Now, as referenced in the original statement, the Masses are said to be illicit “UNLESS”…. Illicit UNLESS. Illicit UNLESS… And of course, we see as I’ve said now repeatedly, conditions apply.

      • jon October 8, 2021 at 6:53 pm - Reply

        PCED, that article and photo you link do not prove your point. It is from seven years ago. I was told by priest-friends that during that time until recently, that the atmosphere at the Sacristy at St. Peter’s was pretty relaxed and informal. It was possible then for a cleric who had a collar on, or better yet wearing a cassock, to just show up and ask to offer a private Mass at one of the side chapels. And they’d let him.

        Well, things have changed. In case you haven’t heard: Concelebrations are now the norm at St. Peter’s, and the Mass in the Extraordinary Form can only be offered in the Clementine Chapel. There may be exceptions, but I believe that’s the norm now. SO, if your friends from the beloved SSPX were to visit St. Peter’s again, I am sure that this time they’d be asked for identification, and most likely be deterred this time.

        I reckon that the reason why St. Peter’s has become stricter is because of people like PCEDMan or like a priest from the beloved SSPX who boast or brag about their Society being allowed to offer Mass at the hallowed space of St. Peter’s. Well, I’m glad they’re stricter now.

        • PCEDMan October 9, 2021 at 10:44 am

          Of course the atmosphere was different than today.

          You guys are barking up the wrong tree.

          Show me some Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgies or Methodist services or illicit Masses said by laicized priests at St Peters.

          In the meantime, my point stands.

          The Church does not treat the SSPX the way you few here say it does. You approach the issue with a bigoted perspective and then misapply the plain language and actions of the Church meet your faulty narrative.

          The Church provides for example certain situations where a Catholic may receive certain Sacraments administered by an Eastern Orthodox priest. This when the EO’s are stated to be in schism. The SSPX is organizationally irregular, but has not been declared to be in schism. The Church stipulates the conditions by which the faithful may assist at SSPX Mass. You may not like it, but the facts are clear. No amount of denials by the folks here can change the facts.

          Bishops all over the world work with SSPX priests to witness marriages and say the nuptial Mass. SSPX priests are granted faculties no other Catholic priests possess; absolution worldwide. As such, SSPX priests serve directly under the authority and supervision of the Pope himself.

          Which is why you all tend toward schism in your denials of the place SSPX Masses and Sacraments find within the Catholic Church today.

        • ct October 9, 2021 at 5:32 pm

          The SSPX priests do not serve under the authority and supervision of the Pope himself.
          They have no canonical status in the church.
          What the Pope did was for the faithful who are misled into believing they are going to a Catholic chapel when they are not.
          I am glad for the innocent that he did this but not for the obstinate.
          I saw an online forum where two priests (not SSPX but even more trad) were talking about how they knew they should go to hell for what they do but they are hoping on God’s mercy.
          People are so naïve they don’t think a priest could go to hell for saying a Mass. It is not the traditional form; it is their defiance of the Church. They are very dishonest. They say they are traditional but they are really just Protestants who say a Latin Mass.
          Remember we are at the beginning of this-like the Anglicans used to be.
          You see how, like the Protestants, the trads have split into different churches and some even have their very own church, although they all claim to be traditional Roman Catholic.
          This is why you must be united under the Pope and the local ordinary.to be a real Catholic parish.
          We need to pray for the conversion of all Catholic priests who refuse to say Mass in the Catholic Church.

        • PCEDMan October 9, 2021 at 7:23 pm

          ct’s post October 9, 2021 at 5:32 pm is either simply incorrect or flatout schismatic. Or poorly worded.

          “They have no canonical status in the church.” That is not strictly true for an organization that has received the direct faculties from a Pope. Now as to exactly what that status is, that is a legitimate question, as it is irregular. Similar question could have been directed toward Saint Alphonsus Ligouri and his Redemptorists which existed for 17 years before the Pope granted approval.

          “The SSPX priests do not serve under the authority and supervision of the Pope himself.”

          This is a staggering statement. What’s more, SSPX serves at the pleasure of the Pope. Did they not, they would be declared schismatic and condemned.

          What priest can fly anywhere in the world, get off a plane, enter a diocese and hear confessions licitly?

          Under normal circumstances {not involving imminent death of the penitent, etc}, none except for SSPX priests.

          In fact, Bishops can’t even do so last I checked, without receiving an invitation from another Bishop.

          Yet SSPX priests can.

          Why?

          Because the pope has granted them this special faculty.

        • ct October 10, 2021 at 1:27 am

          This is written by a canon lawyer this year.
          https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2021/09/16/when-is-it-okay-to-go-to-an-sspx-mass/
          The bottom line is if you can attend a licit Mass it is not okay to go to an sspx mass.
          The SSPX is not in good standing with the Catholic Church. It is not in full Communion with the Catholic Church.

        • PCEDMan October 10, 2021 at 12:54 pm

          ct: The canon lawyer cited in the link admits the status of the SSPX is “confusing”.

          And she is confused. I am well familiar with that link. Notably, which you missed, she cites only one of the provisions included in the code (844) and completely ignores the other.

          For example, in my region, Novus ordo parishes are not considered some of the “worst” offenders vis a vis liturgical abuses. However, I am unaware of ANY that do not encourage and include various liturgical abuses every single week. One might simply examine the polls of Catholics and the lack of belief in the Real presence to find a result of this massive, defining and recurring abuse of the Lord’s Body and Blood.

          And this the moral reason for assistance at SSPX Mass remains.

          I would encourage you to study closely the work of Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Bishop Vitus Huonder. Both were official Apostolic Visitators to the SSPX and both can enlighten you on SSPX Sacraments and Mass attendance. Both are highly knowledgeable about the specifics and both encourage assistance at SSPX Mass. Bp Huonder himself received permission from the Pope to retire at the SSPX house in Wangs, Switzerland where he now resides and…says Mass with the SSPX.

          I will take the word of these two experts over the incomplete assessment of an individual canon lawyer every time.

          Here is an interview with Bp Huonder you may find helpful:

          https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/interview-his-excellency-bishop-vitus-huonder-69007

        • ct October 11, 2021 at 4:13 pm

          PCEDMan, thank you for reading it. I’ve only talked about their status and the illicitness of their Masses. I have ignored the “moral” reason for attendance.
          My biggest problem with SSPX is that they are deceitful and dishonest about their status and the liceity of their Masses. I won’t link to their page but I’m sure you have seen it.
          People believe what they want to believe. If you want to believe the Truth, you need to pray to the Holy Spirit to guide you into all Truth.

        • ct October 11, 2021 at 4:21 pm

          PCEDMan, in two minutes on the internet I find that Bishop Huonder has retired to live in a hostel for boys. Not creepy at all.
          Also, that he is using his stay with the SSPX to help them integrate back into the Church, hence the papal permission.
          I’ll keep looking.

        • PCEDMan October 12, 2021 at 6:05 am

          ct:

          I’m about done with this discussion. Folks can examine the facts if they care to. In summary, you condemn others for disobedience while your posts here reek of same, refusing to accept the positive statements and directives of Popes and their agents and now you drag yourself into the gutter to disparage a man tasked directly by a Pope to investigate SSPX who with the Pope’s approval has made a significant active step toward regularization of the SSPX. Where the irrational hatred you possess comes from I really don’t know, but it is below any standard of acceptability for me and demonstrates bad faith on your part in the discussion, so I’ll close with this.

          For those interested, the “hostel” you cite is a private, Swiss-government accredited and approved school. For those who are curious;

          https://fsspx.ch/de/institut-sancta-maria-wangs

          https://fsspx.ch/fr

          For the record, Papal Visitations directed at Traditional orders and apostolates have in recent years pretty consistently resulted in severe action and restrictions of the apostolates so inspected. The opposite occurred with SSPX. The very positive statements made by the official Visitators of course are ignored by you while you unjustifiably insult one of the Visitators, but that is about par for the bitterness you have displayed throughout this discussion. Accusations without basis, hatred spewed.

          I encourage others who don’t fall prey to that sort of mentality to also investigate the ongoing development of statements by Bishop Athanasius Schneider. For that matter, there is some on this subject but also much more in his book CHRISTUS VINCIT. I recommend it. He, too was a Papal Visitator and has knowledge and expertise in the matter of the SSPX which ct here obviously lacks.

          And so we have SSPX. Irregular. Doctrinally orthodox. Never accused by any official entity of the Catholic Church of heresy. Actively resisting the sweep of modernism that plagues the Church today. Protected by the Pope. Granted faculties by the Pope. Praised by the Pope. Praised by official agents of the Pope tasked to investigate it.

          I’ve resisted efforts to inflame me in this discussion and have simply presented the facts as they apply to a challenging situation. On the other side, some here reject all of this above and now resort to insinuations and insult a papally assigned, authorized representative.

          That’s enough.

          Cheers, to all and my God Save the Catholic Church.

        • jon October 12, 2021 at 11:46 am

          PCEDMan is still wrong. The beloved SSPX has no legal ministry in the Church (apart from what Pope Francis has allowed) because they are doctrinally unsound, heterodox, and dissentful. The fact that they haven’t accepted in full the doctrines re-articulated in the Second Vatican Council is the prime reason for their irregularity.

        • ct October 13, 2021 at 10:44 pm

          PCEDMan, you must be one of them to get so huffy. They can’t be doctinally orthodox if the reasons they won’t come into full communion with the Catholic Church are doctrinal.
          I do not know what you mean by modernism but the root of heresy is “I know better than the Church.”
          And as for my being creeped out by a priest retiring in a boy’s boarding school:https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2020/05/20/kansas-investigating-sexual-abuse-claims-in-breakaway-society-of-st-pius-x/

      • jon October 8, 2021 at 7:05 pm - Reply

        PCED, that article and photo you link do not prove your point. I was told by priest-friends that during that time until recently, that the atmosphere at the Sacristy at St. Peter’s was pretty relaxed and informal. It was possible then for a cleric who had a collar on, or better yet wearing a cassock, to just show up and ask to offer a private Mass at one of the side chapels. And they’d let him.

        Well, things have changed. In case you haven’t heard: Concelebrations are now the norm at St. Peter’s, and the Mass in the Extraordinary Form can only be offered in the Clementine Chapel. There may be exceptions, but I believe that’s the norm now. SO, if your friends from the beloved SSPX were to visit St. Peter’s again, I am sure that this time they’d be asked for identification, and most likely be deterred this time.

        I reckon that the reason why St. Peter’s has become stricter is because of people like PCEDMan or like a priest from the beloved SSPX who boast or brag about their Society being allowed to offer Mass at the hallowed space of St. Peter’s. Well, I’m glad they’re stricter now.

        • PCEDMan October 9, 2021 at 11:01 am

          Another perfect example of the pride that defines your statements.

          The Pope never once described such a disciplinary action in general nor in detail regarding the Society and in fact Pope Francis has been quite the friend of the SSPX, while you prefer your own private judgement:

          “Well, I’m glad they’re stricter now.”

          You might remember that ALL priest Masses have been curtailed.

          So in terms of raw number and %, one could just as easily say “Well, I’m glad they’re stricter now” regarding the limiting of Novus Ordo Masses and diocesan priests who say them at St Peter’s since they by FAR are the ones most “strictly” curtailed!

          1
          1
        • jon October 9, 2021 at 2:22 pm

          PCEDMan: any faithful Catholic should be glad that the Sacristy at St. Peter’s is “stricter now” in order to avoid in the future the act pulled by folks like you earlier by displaying a photo of a priest of the beloved SSPX offering a Mass at St. Peter’s and saying, “hey look, the SSPX was permitted to offer Mass at St. Peter’s…St Peter’s!” The beloved SSPX priest was most likely not permitted, but rather snuck in. Just disingenuousness. PCEDMan, alert and faithful folks like me see right through that contrivance of yours.

        • PCEDMan October 9, 2021 at 7:36 pm

          jon October 9, 2021 at 2:22 pm says….”The beloved SSPX priest was most likely not permitted, but rather snuck in.”

          The event occurred years ago now. If what you say here was true, it is inconceivable that such a “sneaking” would not have been exposed by now.

        • jon October 10, 2021 at 9:48 am

          PCEDMan, it would be unnecessary to “expose” such transgressions by the beloved SSPX. Rather, the response of the Sacristans of St. Peter’s is the present protocol we have now: concelebrations only at St. Peter’s unless special permission is granted, and the Mass of John XXIII only at the Clementine Chapel.

          BTW, your statement that “What’s more, SSPX serves at the pleasure of the Pope” is flat wrong. ct is correct. Apart from confessions and nuptial Masses, the beloved SSPX have no licit ministry in the Church. The beloved SSPX serves only at their own pleasure. This is very apparent.

        • PCEDMan October 10, 2021 at 12:41 pm

          jon that assessment is self-contradictory.

          Of course evidence is necessary to back up the accusation you leveled. And the fact that the rules for saying Mass in St peter’s have changed has absolutely no bearing on what they were.

          Again, without proof of your assertion, you demonstrate disdain for the Popes who allowed the previous rules to apply and specifically for Pope Francis who allowed the SSPX to say Mass at St Peter’s. Again your accusation falls harder on the Novus Ordo community which is the one most seriously impacted by the virtual shutdown of St Peter’s.

        • PCEDMan October 10, 2021 at 12:42 pm

          jon: Furthermore, the Pope could if the SSPX warranted it, condemn the entire organization.

          He has not.

          By his pleasure they exist as they do.

          Stay tuned.

        • jon October 11, 2021 at 5:55 pm

          PCEDMan persists in his error. Let’s make this easier for you PCED: The CDF is very clear that the beloved SSPX’s problem is doctrinal. Msgr. Perl is clear that by and large attendance at regular Masses and other sacraments of the beloved SSPX cannot be recommended and is in fact discouraged by the Church. Pope Francis is clear that the Church recognizes confessions and nuptial Masses by the beloved SSPX, and nothing more. Anything beyond these is all PCEDMan’s contrivance and invention, his own efforts at trying to “irregularly regularize” the beloved SSPX. Such are the usual tactics of this outfit called the SSPX. They try to confuse, obfuscate, and confound. Pope Francis and Pope Benedict have been very gracious to them, and they have not returned the favor. Don’t think that has not been noticed. Whatever minuscule “legal” ministry they have in the Church can all be taken away. Be warned.

        • jon October 11, 2021 at 6:16 pm

          BTW, PCEDMan’s assertion that the “virtual shutdown” at St. Peter’s impacts more the priests who offer the Ordinary Form isn’t true. Flat wrong. There was no “virtual shutdown.” Moreover, no priest who offers the Ordinary Form has problems with concelebrating; and if he’s with a group of pilgrims with prior approval, he may offer a Mass by himself at one of the side chapels.

          This “virtual shutdown” if one can call it that (I call it the “new-and-improved protocols”) is actually tougher on rogue priests, priests without faculties, and the beloved SSPX and their fans who love to go on blogs like this and “brag” that they’ve been “allowed” to offer Mass at St. Peter’s. Very very unlikely folks that this outfit called the SSPX who is not allowed to offer Mass at a regular parish in the Catholic Church, would be “allowed” to offer Mass at a side chapel in St. Peter’s. Very unlikely. It’s most likely that the priest of the beloved SSPX snuck in, folks; or that the relaxed Sacristans at St. Peter’s merely looked away. No need to “investigate” or “expose” then this sorry photo-op by the beloved SSPX. After all, the matter has been taken cared of by the “new-and-improved protocols.”

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Vox Cantoris vs. Aqua

The Catholic Monitor commenter Aqua had this to say to the Vox Cantoris website: Aqua said… Fred, your topic here reminds me of a dust-up, a few days ago, on Vox Cantoris. He asserted that it is our duty as Christians to wear masks to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass if the government tells us we must, or they will close our Churches. My response to him was that I find it inconceivable that an orthodox Catholic, such as himself, would ever submit to unjust dictates from secular government over how we approach Our Lord in Holy Mass. My response to him was that the Mass belongs to Catholics and we decide, within the bounds of Tradition, and in accord with the Word of Jesus, how we conduct ourselves in Holy Mass. Only one authority prevails over Mass and that is our God and the Sacred Tradition given by Him to guide us in all times and places. Understand, there is nothing inherently wrong with wearing a mask to Mass. But there is EVERYTHING wrong with wearing a symbol

Inventor of mRNA Vaccines, Robert W. Malone MD: "'Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò is calling for the creation of an Anti-Globalist Alliance 'under the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the only King and Savior,' to fight back against the establishment of the New World Order'"

T his is what the inventor of mRNA vaccines, Robert W. Malone MD himself, reported about the vaccines: Robert W Malone, MD @RWMaloneMD "We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination." [https://mobile.twitter.com/RWMaloneMD/status/1462194727407730693]   Moreover, he goes even further and is quoting Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò's call for the creation of an Anti-Globalist Alliance:   Robert W Malone, MD @RWMaloneMD "Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò is calling for the creation of an Anti-Globalist Alliance “under the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the only King and Savior,” to fight back against the establishment of the New World Order." youtube.com Abp. Viganò calls for Anti-Globalist Alliance to stop global enslav... Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò is calli

"The West Does Not Understand the Extreme Danger from Its Arming of Ukraine The Idiot Biden Regime and Insane Neoconservatives Have the World on the Path to Armegeddon"

Paul Craig Roberts wrote: How Many More Red Lines Can Be Crossed Before Armageddon Arrives? Paul Craig Roberts The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe published on April 15, 2016, more than six years ago, a report on the torture of Donbass Russians by the Ukrainian military and police forces.   The report documents horrendous torture and it was done out of racial hatred of Russians. You can read the report here:   https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/e/7/233896.pdf     Few Westerners, being so poorly educated, are aware that Western Ukraine fought for Nazi Germany during World War II.   When Washington overthrew the Ukrainian government in 2014, Washington installed a Nazi government. The Nazi government in Ukraine shelled the Russian residents of the two break-away Donbass republics for 8 years while Washington and NATO trained and equipped a Ukrainian army to retake the breakaway republics. .. ... These statements from Russian leaders indicate that the I