Editor’s Note: The following is a modified copy of a debate Christ the King Law Center's (CKLC) president had on Facebook with infamous Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) critic John Salza which has been edited for presentation on this blog. This debate occurred on the personal Facebook page of an associate of Salza (hereinafter referred to as "ASSOCIATE") who requested that CKLC's president and another individual (hereinafter referred to as "OTHER INDIVIDUAL") comment on a video recording of Salza's appearance on Pints with Aquinas with Matt Fradd. That video was more than three (3) hours long. We thought we would share it to clarify any questions or concerns others had regarding our organization and any ties it might have with the SSPX. And also, we want to help "unite the clans" amongst the Catholic faithful in order to help rebuild Christendom. The exclusion of an organization of Catholic priests-such as the SSPX-would preclude this unity.
CKLC: I also have better things to do with my time. Plus I already read on his [Salza's] website his arguments regarding SSPX. Like him I am also an attorney and I understand where he is coming from and the methodology he appears to be using in his arguments which are in conflict with the methodology outlined in canon law specifically canon 18 which says that laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation. Under Salza's interpretation of the law a Catholic could easily find himself in a situation with having to attend an irreverent novus ordo Mass because he cannot attend the SSPX.
ASSOCIATE: something to consider though is that as he engages more and more SSPX advocates his arguments get more refined and better presented. His Pints interview for example is a much cleaner and comprehensive overview than his [Robert] Sungenis interview[...]
ASSOCIATE: [CKLC] let me ask, do you believe there is such a thing as a reverent Novus Ordo?
CKLC: Ok. But we should also recall that his arguments and statements, specifically with regards to Mass attendance at the SSPX, are his own and thereby binding on no one with the possible exception of himself and those whom he persuades. But they do not represent the official teachings of the Church. Vatican officials, more than once, communicating in their official capacities have stated the opposite of what Salza claims with regards to Mass attendance including in a personal letter sent to me by the then Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission Msgr. Perle wherein he stated that 1) it is not a sin to attend Mass at the SSPX and, 2) I may fulfill my Sunday obligation at such a Mass.
CKLC: There "may" be a reverent novus ordo but they are not easy to find. Someone once called them the "unicorn" Masses due to their rarity. Which makes little sense why someone would want to restrict access to the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) by eliminating the option of going to an SSPX Mass when that is in many cases the only reasonable alternative in a particular area.
OTHER INDIVIDUAL: I agree. But it’s not just an issue of the degree of reverence in the Novus Ordo. Look around you and see how many immodestly dressed women are present. It gets worse during the summer months. Young boys have extreme difficulty averting their gaze and not having impure thoughts. Then they have to sit there and witness Sunday after Sunday Jesus being received in the hand like a piece of cookie. It is no wonder children growing up immersed in this environment lose the faith when they’re allowed to make their own decisions. The supreme law is the salvation of souls, and these things matter, because children learn more about the faith by the example of others than by reading Salza’s personal interpretation.
CKLC: "The supreme law is the salvation of souls, and these things matter, because children learn more about the faith by the example of others than by reading Salza’s personal interpretation." I like that.
ASSOCIATE: CKLC he makes the point that Perl Letters and other like it are not meant to be a response for the Church but only for you. So already it sounds like he has new answers to the points you made.
ASSOCIATE: He also advises people should ask their own bishop of they fulfill their obligation at the SSPX chapel within their jurisdiction
ASSOCIATE: What I'd like to see is [CKLC] vs John Salza... JD vs JD...
ASSOCIATE: I bookmarked the objections that came in [link not included]
CKLC: "he makes the point that Perl letters and other like it are not meant to be a response for the Church but only for you." Then according to him I can go the SSPX Masses without sin and fulfill my Sunday obligation. If he is being intellectually honest he needs to admit then that there is no blanket prohibition by the Church against attendance at the SSPX Mass nor that you can never get your Sunday obligation from attendance at such a Mass. And where does he get the idea that Perl letters and others like it are not meant to be a response from the Church? Just because he says so? Any good lawyer would ask to cite authority. [Editor's Note: In a post on his twitter account Catholic theologian-Paul Casey, M.D.-stated the following regarding whether Monsignor Perle's letters regarding SSPX Mass attendance are responses limited only to the recipients of those letters: 'The Vatican, on attending the SSPX for your Sunday obligation (10): Both the 1999 and the 2008 Ecclesia Dei letters *specifically* refer to “the faithful” and “Catholics” in general; therefore, like the 1984 letter, they are not limited only to the recipients of the responses.']
CKLC: "He also advises people should ask their own bishop of they fulfill their obligation at the SSPX chapel within their jurisdiction"
Finally a position I might agree with. But I would add that you can simply ask your parish pastor.
CKLC: "What I'd like to see is [CKLC] vs John Salza... JD vs JD..."
No thanks. Salza has a much bigger fan base than me. ;) But I would like to bring in a more heavy weight trad attorney like Christopher Ferrara to debate Salza.
CKLC: "I bookmarked the objections that came in" Got better things to do like work. Plus I can save time by asking my bishop or parish pastor.
ASSOCIATE: [CKLC] He does if you watch the video. LOL.
ASSOCIATE: [CKLC] you could I don't know how much time that will save. The video is 3 hours. The bishop hasn't emailed back in 2 years.
CKLC: "He does if you watch the video. LOL." Watch his three hour video? No thanks.
CKLC: [ASSOCIATE] "you could I don't know how much time that will save. The video is 3 hours. The bishop hasn't emailed back in 2 years."
I can get a response from my pastor in less than 3 hours.
ASSOCIATE: [CKLC] your pastor being where you are registered ? But do you apply that principle across the board? In other words, knowing what posts you have made before about SSPX, you don't advise for people to ask their pastors or bishops, but that SSPX is ok to go to universally, right?
ASSOCIATE: [CKLC] at 2x speed. He makes some good lawyerly arguments. Good enough for me anyway.
ASSOCIATE: [CKLC] It's too bad I like going to their bookstore, and wouldn't mind going there on non obligation non communion occasions.
CKLC: [OTHER INDIVIDUAL] "I agree. But it’s not just an issue of the degree of reverence in the Novus Ordo. Look around you and see how many immodestly dressed women are present. It gets worse during the summer months. Young boys have extreme difficulty averting their gaze and not having impure thoughts. Then they have to sit there and witness Sunday after Sunday Jesus being received in the hand like a piece of cookie. It is no wonder children growing up immersed in this environment lose the faith when they’re allowed to make their own decisions. The supreme law is the salvation of souls, and these things matter, because children learn more about the faith by the example of others than by reading Salza’s personal interpretation."
Yes. I can attest to seeing a big difference in general between the clothing worn by ladies that attend the TLM where I attended and those that attend the Novus Ordo Mass (NOM) where I attended. I know that there are some conservatives that like to slam trads for supposedly thinking we're holier than thou but that is not the case here. We're not talking about the state of someone's soul but what you can see with your own eyes. One time I left a TLM after it was over and the ladies were generally dressed with great dignity and modesty a stark contrast from the crowd that I saw walk into the NOM that was scheduled after. Is it possible that there are other NOMs where there is more modest attire worn? Sure. But then you have to take into account other issues such as general doctrinal orthodoxy of the attendees at such Masses which according to the only poll I know taken comparing TLM and NOM attendees shows a big difference between the two here.
CKLC: [ASSOCIATE] ["] [CKLC] your pastor being where you are registered ? ["]
Yes.
["]But do you apply that principle across the board? In other words, knowing what posts you have made before about SSPX is ok to go to universally, right?["]
I don't recall ever stating that the SSPX is ok to go to universally. You can say that though for any type of Mass including the Novus Ordo Mass (NOM) where you find all sorts of issues. For example, why go to a NOM where you have modernist preaching as opposed to going to a Fraternity of Saint Peter (FFPS) parish where the pastor is preaching orthodox doctrine?
CKLC: [ASSOCIATE] " at 2x speed. He makes some good lawyerly arguments. Good enough for me anyway. "
He should stick to the law. Maybe I should too but he keeps butting into this...
"It's too bad I like going to their bookstore, and wouldn't mind going there on non obligation non communion occasions"
Go to confession there. I did last Saturday in Arcadia. If you do perhaps you should ask the priest you are confessing to if you can get your Sunday obligation satisfied with them and take their communion. Considering the fact that the Pope gave them ordinary jurisdiction to confess you.
Earlier I had stated that I "might agree with" Salza advising people ask their own bishop if they fulfill their Sunday obligation at the SSPX chapel within their jurisdiction. I would like to add that Father Z has made a good point in this article regarding the limited authority bishops have regarding forbidding their faithful from attending Masses or getting other Sacraments with the SSPX: here.
I know Salza had written a reply article to an earlier article by Father Z regarding SSPX Sunday Mass obligation. I read it and am not persuaded by his argument for a number of reasons that I am not going to get into here at this time. But some of the reasons I object to Salza's conclusion is that Salza once again violates the canon law methodology required in Canon 18 and gives an overly restrictive interpretation of canon 1248. Furthermore, Father Z worked with the Vatican's Ecclesia Dei commission and would be more familiar with their opinions than Salza. So I trust Father Z on this matter more than Salza.
ASSOCIATE: [CKLC] thanks for this. I have passed this on to John Salza. If he responds I might tag fr. Z.
OTHER INDIVIDUAL: [CKLC] there's really no need to ask the bishop for permission to fulfill the Sunday obligation at SSPX Masses. Salza is unable to explain how priests who are in schism can be granted facilities by this pope to validly absolve sins and celebrate Nuptial Masses licitly. Instead of addressing this point he spends three hours digging up past PCED statements that conflict with other past statements and actions by Benedict and Francis.
ASSOCIATE: [CKLC] but couldn't I say something similar about Cardinal Burke who was once in the highest Church court? You'd think he has a bit of weight too, at least above Fr. Z if we are playing Church Pokeman cards?
CKLC: [ASSOCIATE] "but couldn't I say something similar about Cardinal Burke who was once in the highest Church court? You'd think he has a bit of weight too, at least above Fr. Z if we are playing Church Pokeman cards?"
No. Cardinal Burke didn't work for the Ecclesia Dei commission. Father Z did.
ASSOCIATE: [CKLC] and he has no personal biases?
CKLC: [ASSOCIATE] Maybe he does. It doesn't necessarily invalidate his opinion.
ASSOCIATE: His argument is not just the Perl Letters which is why the Fr Z piece is not a smoking gun for me.
CKLC: [ASSOCIATE] On the issue of the Perle letters I would consider Father Z more persuasive.
ASSOCIATE: [CKLC] here's your response.
From John [Salza].
He is "not going to get into" why he thinks I am wrong? Why? Is he too busy to explain it? Obviously, he has no reason other than to appeal to Fr. Z, whom I have asked publicly and privately to respond to my position, and which he has avoided doing. I am guessing that is because Fr. Z cannot rebut it. I have even asked Fr. Z whether he thinks a priest who is not incardinated under a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction is still a legitimate Catholic minister. He also refused to answer that question.
My position is not based on Ecclesia Dei replies, but rather on the canonical jurisprudence under former canon 1249 of the 1917 Code and the commentaries to canon 1248 of the 1983 Code. So whether Fr. Z worked for Ecclesia Dei is irrelevant. Ecclesia Dei replies are only binding upon the person for whom the reply was intended. I have also written an article which shows every single Ecclesia Dei reply (except one where the person had no recourse to a Catholic church) forbade Catholics from attending SSPX Masses or receiving Communion there.
His argument is nothing more than an appeal to Fr. Z, and Fr. Z does not rebut my position. If Fr. Z disagrees with me that Catholics should appear and defer to their bishops on the matter, then let him come out and tell us why.
CKLC: [ASSOCIATE] I don't owe John Salza an explanation as he wants. And no, I don't have "no reason other than to appeal to Fr. Z". And Father Z doesn't owe Salza an explanation either. Who does John Salza think he is? The Grand Inquisitor?
Other than referring to Father Z I had also indicated I objected to Salza's conclusion due to him violating the canon law methodology required in canon 18 (which says that laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation) and giving an overly restrictive interpretation and application of canon 1248. The Catholic faithful arguably have the right to attend the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), especially on Sundays to fulfill their Sunday obligation, and laws that could restrict such attendance should be interpreted strictly. Salza claims he has relied on commentaries to canon 1249 of the 1917 Code [of canon law] and canon 1248 of the 1983 code [of canon law]. The 1917 Code is no longer in force having been abrogated by the 1983 code. The "commentaries" that he relies on for the 1983 code is JUST ONE commentary edited not by the Vatican or any of its departments but by a group of three canon lawyers who represent a group of canonists called the Canon Law Society of America. This commentary has no magisterial authority and doesn't speak with the authority of the Holy See. In fact this commentary has been found to contain serious errors in theology.
Father John Trigilio wrote an article wherein he stated the following: "[r]eaders will find more than comments [in this canon law commentary], however as blatant heterodoxy, dissent and outright nonsense punctuate the book... [and there is] a plethora of speculative theology, dissident opinion and at times crass impudence." Among other issues Father John Trigilio exposes this error in the canon law commentary: A footnote [from the canon law commentary makes] a brazen attack [on Pope John Paul II's declaration in the document Ordinatio Sacerdotalis regarding the impossibility of women's ordination] when it says "the statement by the CDF [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] of October 28, 1995, that the teaching [in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis] to the effect that the Church has no authority to confer priestly ordination on women requires the definitive assent of the faithful since 'it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium' is an exaggeration". Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in the Responsum ad Dubium (10-28-95) did not exaggerate the teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, rather, he aptly pointed out that it is definitive and to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith and his assessment was authorized by the Roman Pontiff, Pope John Paul II. On November 17th, 1995, Archbishop J. Francis Stafford, concurred with the judgment that this was definitive and "infallible" teaching. The following day (November 18), the CDF issued yet another clarification on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis that whereas the document is not an ex cathedra statement, nevertheless, the doctrine contained in it is considered infallible since it emanates from the infallible Ordinary Magisterium: "all members of the faithful are required to give their assent to the teaching stated therein."4 Classifying the official interpretation of the CDF as an "exaggeration" is offensive to say the least and has no place in a commentary on canon law. Canon Law reflects and implements the theology of the Magisterium: it does not create or interpret it.'
Furthermore, there are other canon law commentaries that I found that undermine Salza's argument against fulfilling the Sunday obligation at an SSPX Mass. Unsurprisingly, Salza left out these commentaries as support for his position. In a canon law commentary published by the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland it states this regarding canon 1248 section 1's statement that the [Sunday] obligation of participating in the Mass is satisfied by one who assists at Mass wherever it is celebrated in a Catholic rite:
"what of a catholic who, on a Sunday or holyday of obligation, may for a good reason-e.g. because of a public office, of a family relationship, of friendship, even of a wish to be better informed-attends Mass in an Orthodox Church on a Sunday or holyday of obligation? It is certainly a tenable view that, in accordance with the Directory Concerning Ecumenical Matters of 1967, such a catholic will thereby have satisfied the obligation of assisting at Mass as determined by this canon." [1]
I am not endorsing this commentary's unqualified statement that attending an "Orthodox" Mass can satisfy the Sunday obligation without stating that such attendance can only occur when the catholic does not take part in the non-Catholic "Orthodox" Mass (such as not taking communion; and not taking part in common responses, hymns, and actions). As Pope Pius XI taught in the encyclical Mortalium Animus: "[the] Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics." However for the sake of argument if, according to this canon law commentary, a Catholic-for a "good reason"-can satisfy their Sunday obligation by attendance at a non-Catholic "Orthodox" church then it would not make sense that they cannot also satisfy their obligation, at least for similar reasons, at an SSPX church! This is so even if, as Salza and other anti-SSPX critics claim, the SSPX is not Catholic [which they are (see below)].
In another canon law commentary published by the Canon Law Society of America in 1985 it states this regarding canon 1248 section 1's statement that the [Sunday] obligation of participating in the Mass is satisfied by one who assists at Mass wherever it is celebrated in a Catholic rite:
'By the removal of the word "legitimately" from the draft of this canon (... assistance at a Mass which is legitimately celebrated), the burden of determining which Mass is legitimately celebrated and which is not is now lifted from the faithful. Participation in any Eucharistic celebration fulfills the obligation. It is the responsibility of the priest presiding to know where and when he can legitimately celebrate.'
So even if the SSPX Masses are not "legitimately" celebrated this does not prevent the faithful from fulfilling their Sunday obligation at such a Mass as-per this canon law commentary-participation in any Eucharistic celebration fulfills the obligation. In an article trying to deal with this issue Salza said the following: 'Indeed the necessity of meeting the requirements of canon 1248 do not depend upon the 'legitimacy" of the Mass as regards the minister (i.e., whether the individual priest has the faculty to say Mass), because that is something the faithful will likely never know, and do not have the obligation to know. Rather, satisfying canon 1248 depends upon whether the Mass is offered in Catholic church sui iurus, and which is in full communion with the Catholic Church, which is something a Catholic does have the obligation to know.' In sum Salza argues that "[t]he Mass must be celebrated in a Catholic rite, i.e., in the liturgical rite of any Catholic church sui iuris, but not in a church which is not in full communion with the Catholic Church, although using a Catholic liturgical rite." The only support (other than his own arguments) that Salza provides for such a claim is ONE canon law commentary which states that "[t]he Mass must be celebrated in a Catholic rite, i.e., in the liturgical rite of any Catholic church sui iuris, but not in a church which is not in full communion with the Catholic Church, although using a Catholic liturgical rite." However, as I above this commentary is edited not by the Vatican or any of its departments but by a group of three canon lawyers who represent a group of canonists called the Canon Law Society of America. This commentary has no magisterial authority and doesn't speak with the authority of the Holy See. In fact the book from which this commentary is taken has been found to contain some serious errors in theology. Furthermore, this commentary is contradicted by the previous canon law commentaries I have listed which indicate that a Catholic-for a "good reason"-can satisfy their Sunday obligation by attendance at a non-Catholic "Orthodox" church and participation in any Eucharistic celebration fulfills the Sunday obligation even if not celebrated "legitimately".
But for the sake of argument let us assume that, as Salza's canon law commentary states, in order to fulfill a Catholic's Sunday obligation "[t]he Mass must be celebrated... in the liturgical rite of any Catholic church sui iuris, but not in a church which is not in full communion with the Catholic Church, although using a Catholic liturgical rite." A Catholic church sui iuris (latin for "of its own law") is, according to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches as follows: "A community of Christian faithful, which is joined together by a hierarchy according to the norm of law which is expressly or tacitly recognized as sui iuris by the supreme authority of the Church is called in this code a Church sui iuris" (CCEO can. 27).
"The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments, and the same government. They combine into different groups which are held together by their hierarchy, and so form particular churches or rites" (Orientalium Ecclesiarum no. 2). [See here: Chapter 1 :- Church Sui iuris & Rite (weebly.com)] There are currently 24 Churches sui iuris, 23 such Churches are considered Eastern Catholic Churches and only one is Western (or Latin) Church. All such Churches together make up the Catholic Church and are in full communion. (Ibid).
In a study on the juridic status of the SSPX published by the Faculty of Canon Law of Saint Paul University in Ottawa it was concluded:
Therefore, because the SSPX is part of the Western (or Latin) Church and their priests are clergy of the Latin Church and because the Latin Church is a Church sui iuris in full communion then a good argument can be made that attendance at a Mass of the SSPX fulfills the Sunday obligation. And it is irrelevant if the SSPX clergy are not in "full communion", "suspended", have "no legitimate ministry" (although they do certainly with regards to confessions and weddings done in cooperation with the local diocese). What matters, according to Salza's own commentary, is that "the Mass be celebrated in the liturgical rite of any Catholic Church sui iuris" regardless of whether that Mass is "legitimately" celebrated. It seems clear that the Masses celebrated by the SSPX fall into this category.
So I would rely more on the replies from the Vatican's Ecclesia Dei commission than unreliable comments from a few canon lawyers especially when there are conflicting opinions as to where I can and cannot get my Sunday Mass obligation. And no, it is not irrelevant whether Father Z worked for Ecclesia Dei. His having worked there is relevant in that he is familiar with the thinking of that commission in a way that others who have not worked there do not have. So we should give more weight to Father Z's opinions regarding the intent and interpretation behind Ecclesia Dei's letters on SSPX Mass attendance than someone, like Salza, who never worked there. And where does Salza get the idea that replies from the Ecclesia Dei commission only apply upon the person whom the reply was intended for? Even if that is the case then according to him (if he is being intellectually honest) then I myself should be able to attend SSPX Masses without sin and receive my Sunday obligation there as that is the response I received from a letter from Ecclesia Dei.
And no, I dispute his assertion that Ecclesia Dei's replies except one forbade Catholics from attending SSPX Masses except where there is no "recourse to a Catholic church" or receiving Communion there. I've read them, including the letter I received. First, Salza presumes that the SSPX is outside the Catholic church when in reality the SSPX is within the Catholic Church. See these statements by Church officials to show why:
Therefore, in a study on the juridic status of the SSPX published by the Faculty of Canon Law of Saint Paul University in Ottawa it was concluded that '[t]he Holy See has not recognized the SSPX or treated them as anything other than Catholic. In fact, the Holy See's treatment demonstrates that the SSPX remain Catholic and are thus subject to the laws of the Church, rather than to any ecumenical or interecclesial rules or norms. The response to remit the ["]excommunications["]... manifests acknowledgement by the Holy See that the SSPX is indeed part of the Latin Church and subject to the laws thereof; not some other entity to which ecclesiastical law does not apply...The SSPX is not a sister Church to Catholicism since the SSPX is not some other Church; they are our Catholic brothers and sisters in need of prayerful, charitable and pastoral attention in order to make full their incomplete and tenuous communion. The supreme authority of the Church and the leadership of the SSPX have never challenged that "the situation of the members of this Society is an internal matter of the Catholic Church." (See here).
Second, the secretary of the Ecclesia Dei commission has indicated more than once that 1) you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the SSPX, and 2) no sin is incurred in mere attendance at an SSPX Mass, and 3) there is no penalty or canonical delict in mere attendance at an SSPX Mass. Furthermore, in more than one of these replies the secretary of the commission has not stated that the only condition for attendance at SSPX chapels can only be done only if there are no other Catholic churches available. Here is what letters from Ecclesia Dei have said:
A good case where a group of Catholics were punished for their support of the SSPX and then had that punishment overturned was the case of the "Hawaii Six". In that case a group of six lay persons (called the Hawaii Six) attended an SSPX chapel in Honolulu, Hawaii and utilized the services of an SSPX bishop in the sacrament of confirmation. The local diocesan bishop found out about this and declared these individuals excommunicated for schism because of their use of an SSPX bishop (Williamson) for the sacrament of confirmation "but also by that very association with the aforementioned bishop..." The diocesan bishop also accused these individuals of, among other things, "impugning the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the Roman Missal (1970) [otherwise known as the Novus Ordo Mass (NOM)] and further aligning yourselves with the Pius X schismatic movement..."
However, the diocesan bishop was later overruled and the excommunications were declared "null and void" by the then Cardinal Ratzinger who was at the time the head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).
On behalf of Cardinal Ratzinger the Apostolic Pro-Nuncio wrote the following in regards to the diocesan bishop's excommunication decree:
And Cardinal Ratzinger himself, as head of the Vatican's CDF, ruled that: "[T]his Congregation, [the CDF] noting all of the above, is obliged to declare null and void the aforesaid Decree [of excommunication] of the Ordinary of Honolulu." (See here.)
So my arguments are not "nothing more than an appeal to Fr. Z". I have provided other arguments and I am not here going to rehash them all right now regardless of Salza's demands. I have already done a lot at the moment. Responses from me will be given at the time, place, and manner I determine and not by Salza. And I presume Father Z will do the same on his behalf.
[1] In another canon law commentary on canon 1248 published by the Canon Law Society of America (CLSA) in the year 2000 it stated that "[t]he former Ecumenical Directory of 1967 granted a privilege permitting Catholics to fulfill their Sunday obligation and holy day obligation at the divine liturgy of a separated Eastern church. [..] This privilege was suppressed in the 1993 Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms on Ecumenism." However, the canon law commentary that was published by the canon law society of Great Britain & Ireland that indicated it was possible for a Catholic to satisfy their Sunday and holy day obligation at a Mass in an Orthodox church for a "good reason" was published in 1995. This is two years after the privilege Catholics had to fulfill their Sunday and holy day obligation at the divine liturgy of a separated Eastern church was allegedly suppressed according to the CLSA's year 2000 commentary. One might argue that it is speculative to believe that the canon law society of Great Britain & Ireland knew about the "suppression" of the privilege especially since no mention of the 1993 Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms on Ecumenism was mentioned in their 1995 commentary on canon 1248. But it is also speculative to assume, without a statement from the author of this canon law commentary, that the canon law society didn't know about the "suppression". In any event, as I argue further on, either interpretation of canon 1248 permits Catholics the possibility of satisfying their Sunday and holy day obligation by attendance at an SSPX Mass.
CKLC: I also have better things to do with my time. Plus I already read on his [Salza's] website his arguments regarding SSPX. Like him I am also an attorney and I understand where he is coming from and the methodology he appears to be using in his arguments which are in conflict with the methodology outlined in canon law specifically canon 18 which says that laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation. Under Salza's interpretation of the law a Catholic could easily find himself in a situation with having to attend an irreverent novus ordo Mass because he cannot attend the SSPX.
ASSOCIATE: something to consider though is that as he engages more and more SSPX advocates his arguments get more refined and better presented. His Pints interview for example is a much cleaner and comprehensive overview than his [Robert] Sungenis interview[...]
ASSOCIATE: [CKLC] let me ask, do you believe there is such a thing as a reverent Novus Ordo?
CKLC: Ok. But we should also recall that his arguments and statements, specifically with regards to Mass attendance at the SSPX, are his own and thereby binding on no one with the possible exception of himself and those whom he persuades. But they do not represent the official teachings of the Church. Vatican officials, more than once, communicating in their official capacities have stated the opposite of what Salza claims with regards to Mass attendance including in a personal letter sent to me by the then Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission Msgr. Perle wherein he stated that 1) it is not a sin to attend Mass at the SSPX and, 2) I may fulfill my Sunday obligation at such a Mass.
CKLC: There "may" be a reverent novus ordo but they are not easy to find. Someone once called them the "unicorn" Masses due to their rarity. Which makes little sense why someone would want to restrict access to the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) by eliminating the option of going to an SSPX Mass when that is in many cases the only reasonable alternative in a particular area.
OTHER INDIVIDUAL: I agree. But it’s not just an issue of the degree of reverence in the Novus Ordo. Look around you and see how many immodestly dressed women are present. It gets worse during the summer months. Young boys have extreme difficulty averting their gaze and not having impure thoughts. Then they have to sit there and witness Sunday after Sunday Jesus being received in the hand like a piece of cookie. It is no wonder children growing up immersed in this environment lose the faith when they’re allowed to make their own decisions. The supreme law is the salvation of souls, and these things matter, because children learn more about the faith by the example of others than by reading Salza’s personal interpretation.
CKLC: "The supreme law is the salvation of souls, and these things matter, because children learn more about the faith by the example of others than by reading Salza’s personal interpretation." I like that.
ASSOCIATE: CKLC he makes the point that Perl Letters and other like it are not meant to be a response for the Church but only for you. So already it sounds like he has new answers to the points you made.
ASSOCIATE: He also advises people should ask their own bishop of they fulfill their obligation at the SSPX chapel within their jurisdiction
ASSOCIATE: What I'd like to see is [CKLC] vs John Salza... JD vs JD...
ASSOCIATE: I bookmarked the objections that came in [link not included]
CKLC: "he makes the point that Perl letters and other like it are not meant to be a response for the Church but only for you." Then according to him I can go the SSPX Masses without sin and fulfill my Sunday obligation. If he is being intellectually honest he needs to admit then that there is no blanket prohibition by the Church against attendance at the SSPX Mass nor that you can never get your Sunday obligation from attendance at such a Mass. And where does he get the idea that Perl letters and others like it are not meant to be a response from the Church? Just because he says so? Any good lawyer would ask to cite authority. [Editor's Note: In a post on his twitter account Catholic theologian-Paul Casey, M.D.-stated the following regarding whether Monsignor Perle's letters regarding SSPX Mass attendance are responses limited only to the recipients of those letters: 'The Vatican, on attending the SSPX for your Sunday obligation (10): Both the 1999 and the 2008 Ecclesia Dei letters *specifically* refer to “the faithful” and “Catholics” in general; therefore, like the 1984 letter, they are not limited only to the recipients of the responses.']
CKLC: "He also advises people should ask their own bishop of they fulfill their obligation at the SSPX chapel within their jurisdiction"
Finally a position I might agree with. But I would add that you can simply ask your parish pastor.
CKLC: "What I'd like to see is [CKLC] vs John Salza... JD vs JD..."
No thanks. Salza has a much bigger fan base than me. ;) But I would like to bring in a more heavy weight trad attorney like Christopher Ferrara to debate Salza.
CKLC: "I bookmarked the objections that came in" Got better things to do like work. Plus I can save time by asking my bishop or parish pastor.
ASSOCIATE: [CKLC] He does if you watch the video. LOL.
ASSOCIATE: [CKLC] you could I don't know how much time that will save. The video is 3 hours. The bishop hasn't emailed back in 2 years.
CKLC: "He does if you watch the video. LOL." Watch his three hour video? No thanks.
CKLC: [ASSOCIATE] "you could I don't know how much time that will save. The video is 3 hours. The bishop hasn't emailed back in 2 years."
I can get a response from my pastor in less than 3 hours.
ASSOCIATE: [CKLC] your pastor being where you are registered ? But do you apply that principle across the board? In other words, knowing what posts you have made before about SSPX, you don't advise for people to ask their pastors or bishops, but that SSPX is ok to go to universally, right?
ASSOCIATE: [CKLC] at 2x speed. He makes some good lawyerly arguments. Good enough for me anyway.
ASSOCIATE: [CKLC] It's too bad I like going to their bookstore, and wouldn't mind going there on non obligation non communion occasions.
CKLC: [OTHER INDIVIDUAL] "I agree. But it’s not just an issue of the degree of reverence in the Novus Ordo. Look around you and see how many immodestly dressed women are present. It gets worse during the summer months. Young boys have extreme difficulty averting their gaze and not having impure thoughts. Then they have to sit there and witness Sunday after Sunday Jesus being received in the hand like a piece of cookie. It is no wonder children growing up immersed in this environment lose the faith when they’re allowed to make their own decisions. The supreme law is the salvation of souls, and these things matter, because children learn more about the faith by the example of others than by reading Salza’s personal interpretation."
Yes. I can attest to seeing a big difference in general between the clothing worn by ladies that attend the TLM where I attended and those that attend the Novus Ordo Mass (NOM) where I attended. I know that there are some conservatives that like to slam trads for supposedly thinking we're holier than thou but that is not the case here. We're not talking about the state of someone's soul but what you can see with your own eyes. One time I left a TLM after it was over and the ladies were generally dressed with great dignity and modesty a stark contrast from the crowd that I saw walk into the NOM that was scheduled after. Is it possible that there are other NOMs where there is more modest attire worn? Sure. But then you have to take into account other issues such as general doctrinal orthodoxy of the attendees at such Masses which according to the only poll I know taken comparing TLM and NOM attendees shows a big difference between the two here.
CKLC: [ASSOCIATE] ["] [CKLC] your pastor being where you are registered ? ["]
Yes.
["]But do you apply that principle across the board? In other words, knowing what posts you have made before about SSPX is ok to go to universally, right?["]
I don't recall ever stating that the SSPX is ok to go to universally. You can say that though for any type of Mass including the Novus Ordo Mass (NOM) where you find all sorts of issues. For example, why go to a NOM where you have modernist preaching as opposed to going to a Fraternity of Saint Peter (FFPS) parish where the pastor is preaching orthodox doctrine?
CKLC: [ASSOCIATE] " at 2x speed. He makes some good lawyerly arguments. Good enough for me anyway. "
He should stick to the law. Maybe I should too but he keeps butting into this...
"It's too bad I like going to their bookstore, and wouldn't mind going there on non obligation non communion occasions"
Go to confession there. I did last Saturday in Arcadia. If you do perhaps you should ask the priest you are confessing to if you can get your Sunday obligation satisfied with them and take their communion. Considering the fact that the Pope gave them ordinary jurisdiction to confess you.
Earlier I had stated that I "might agree with" Salza advising people ask their own bishop if they fulfill their Sunday obligation at the SSPX chapel within their jurisdiction. I would like to add that Father Z has made a good point in this article regarding the limited authority bishops have regarding forbidding their faithful from attending Masses or getting other Sacraments with the SSPX: here.
I know Salza had written a reply article to an earlier article by Father Z regarding SSPX Sunday Mass obligation. I read it and am not persuaded by his argument for a number of reasons that I am not going to get into here at this time. But some of the reasons I object to Salza's conclusion is that Salza once again violates the canon law methodology required in Canon 18 and gives an overly restrictive interpretation of canon 1248. Furthermore, Father Z worked with the Vatican's Ecclesia Dei commission and would be more familiar with their opinions than Salza. So I trust Father Z on this matter more than Salza.
ASSOCIATE: [CKLC] thanks for this. I have passed this on to John Salza. If he responds I might tag fr. Z.
OTHER INDIVIDUAL: [CKLC] there's really no need to ask the bishop for permission to fulfill the Sunday obligation at SSPX Masses. Salza is unable to explain how priests who are in schism can be granted facilities by this pope to validly absolve sins and celebrate Nuptial Masses licitly. Instead of addressing this point he spends three hours digging up past PCED statements that conflict with other past statements and actions by Benedict and Francis.
ASSOCIATE: [CKLC] but couldn't I say something similar about Cardinal Burke who was once in the highest Church court? You'd think he has a bit of weight too, at least above Fr. Z if we are playing Church Pokeman cards?
CKLC: [ASSOCIATE] "but couldn't I say something similar about Cardinal Burke who was once in the highest Church court? You'd think he has a bit of weight too, at least above Fr. Z if we are playing Church Pokeman cards?"
No. Cardinal Burke didn't work for the Ecclesia Dei commission. Father Z did.
ASSOCIATE: [CKLC] and he has no personal biases?
CKLC: [ASSOCIATE] Maybe he does. It doesn't necessarily invalidate his opinion.
ASSOCIATE: His argument is not just the Perl Letters which is why the Fr Z piece is not a smoking gun for me.
CKLC: [ASSOCIATE] On the issue of the Perle letters I would consider Father Z more persuasive.
ASSOCIATE: [CKLC] here's your response.
From John [Salza].
He is "not going to get into" why he thinks I am wrong? Why? Is he too busy to explain it? Obviously, he has no reason other than to appeal to Fr. Z, whom I have asked publicly and privately to respond to my position, and which he has avoided doing. I am guessing that is because Fr. Z cannot rebut it. I have even asked Fr. Z whether he thinks a priest who is not incardinated under a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction is still a legitimate Catholic minister. He also refused to answer that question.
My position is not based on Ecclesia Dei replies, but rather on the canonical jurisprudence under former canon 1249 of the 1917 Code and the commentaries to canon 1248 of the 1983 Code. So whether Fr. Z worked for Ecclesia Dei is irrelevant. Ecclesia Dei replies are only binding upon the person for whom the reply was intended. I have also written an article which shows every single Ecclesia Dei reply (except one where the person had no recourse to a Catholic church) forbade Catholics from attending SSPX Masses or receiving Communion there.
His argument is nothing more than an appeal to Fr. Z, and Fr. Z does not rebut my position. If Fr. Z disagrees with me that Catholics should appear and defer to their bishops on the matter, then let him come out and tell us why.
CKLC: [ASSOCIATE] I don't owe John Salza an explanation as he wants. And no, I don't have "no reason other than to appeal to Fr. Z". And Father Z doesn't owe Salza an explanation either. Who does John Salza think he is? The Grand Inquisitor?
Other than referring to Father Z I had also indicated I objected to Salza's conclusion due to him violating the canon law methodology required in canon 18 (which says that laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation) and giving an overly restrictive interpretation and application of canon 1248. The Catholic faithful arguably have the right to attend the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), especially on Sundays to fulfill their Sunday obligation, and laws that could restrict such attendance should be interpreted strictly. Salza claims he has relied on commentaries to canon 1249 of the 1917 Code [of canon law] and canon 1248 of the 1983 code [of canon law]. The 1917 Code is no longer in force having been abrogated by the 1983 code. The "commentaries" that he relies on for the 1983 code is JUST ONE commentary edited not by the Vatican or any of its departments but by a group of three canon lawyers who represent a group of canonists called the Canon Law Society of America. This commentary has no magisterial authority and doesn't speak with the authority of the Holy See. In fact this commentary has been found to contain serious errors in theology.
Father John Trigilio wrote an article wherein he stated the following: "[r]eaders will find more than comments [in this canon law commentary], however as blatant heterodoxy, dissent and outright nonsense punctuate the book... [and there is] a plethora of speculative theology, dissident opinion and at times crass impudence." Among other issues Father John Trigilio exposes this error in the canon law commentary: A footnote [from the canon law commentary makes] a brazen attack [on Pope John Paul II's declaration in the document Ordinatio Sacerdotalis regarding the impossibility of women's ordination] when it says "the statement by the CDF [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] of October 28, 1995, that the teaching [in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis] to the effect that the Church has no authority to confer priestly ordination on women requires the definitive assent of the faithful since 'it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium' is an exaggeration". Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in the Responsum ad Dubium (10-28-95) did not exaggerate the teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, rather, he aptly pointed out that it is definitive and to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith and his assessment was authorized by the Roman Pontiff, Pope John Paul II. On November 17th, 1995, Archbishop J. Francis Stafford, concurred with the judgment that this was definitive and "infallible" teaching. The following day (November 18), the CDF issued yet another clarification on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis that whereas the document is not an ex cathedra statement, nevertheless, the doctrine contained in it is considered infallible since it emanates from the infallible Ordinary Magisterium: "all members of the faithful are required to give their assent to the teaching stated therein."4 Classifying the official interpretation of the CDF as an "exaggeration" is offensive to say the least and has no place in a commentary on canon law. Canon Law reflects and implements the theology of the Magisterium: it does not create or interpret it.'
Furthermore, there are other canon law commentaries that I found that undermine Salza's argument against fulfilling the Sunday obligation at an SSPX Mass. Unsurprisingly, Salza left out these commentaries as support for his position. In a canon law commentary published by the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland it states this regarding canon 1248 section 1's statement that the [Sunday] obligation of participating in the Mass is satisfied by one who assists at Mass wherever it is celebrated in a Catholic rite:
"what of a catholic who, on a Sunday or holyday of obligation, may for a good reason-e.g. because of a public office, of a family relationship, of friendship, even of a wish to be better informed-attends Mass in an Orthodox Church on a Sunday or holyday of obligation? It is certainly a tenable view that, in accordance with the Directory Concerning Ecumenical Matters of 1967, such a catholic will thereby have satisfied the obligation of assisting at Mass as determined by this canon." [1]
I am not endorsing this commentary's unqualified statement that attending an "Orthodox" Mass can satisfy the Sunday obligation without stating that such attendance can only occur when the catholic does not take part in the non-Catholic "Orthodox" Mass (such as not taking communion; and not taking part in common responses, hymns, and actions). As Pope Pius XI taught in the encyclical Mortalium Animus: "[the] Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics." However for the sake of argument if, according to this canon law commentary, a Catholic-for a "good reason"-can satisfy their Sunday obligation by attendance at a non-Catholic "Orthodox" church then it would not make sense that they cannot also satisfy their obligation, at least for similar reasons, at an SSPX church! This is so even if, as Salza and other anti-SSPX critics claim, the SSPX is not Catholic [which they are (see below)].
In another canon law commentary published by the Canon Law Society of America in 1985 it states this regarding canon 1248 section 1's statement that the [Sunday] obligation of participating in the Mass is satisfied by one who assists at Mass wherever it is celebrated in a Catholic rite:
'By the removal of the word "legitimately" from the draft of this canon (... assistance at a Mass which is legitimately celebrated), the burden of determining which Mass is legitimately celebrated and which is not is now lifted from the faithful. Participation in any Eucharistic celebration fulfills the obligation. It is the responsibility of the priest presiding to know where and when he can legitimately celebrate.'
So even if the SSPX Masses are not "legitimately" celebrated this does not prevent the faithful from fulfilling their Sunday obligation at such a Mass as-per this canon law commentary-participation in any Eucharistic celebration fulfills the obligation. In an article trying to deal with this issue Salza said the following: 'Indeed the necessity of meeting the requirements of canon 1248 do not depend upon the 'legitimacy" of the Mass as regards the minister (i.e., whether the individual priest has the faculty to say Mass), because that is something the faithful will likely never know, and do not have the obligation to know. Rather, satisfying canon 1248 depends upon whether the Mass is offered in Catholic church sui iurus, and which is in full communion with the Catholic Church, which is something a Catholic does have the obligation to know.' In sum Salza argues that "[t]he Mass must be celebrated in a Catholic rite, i.e., in the liturgical rite of any Catholic church sui iuris, but not in a church which is not in full communion with the Catholic Church, although using a Catholic liturgical rite." The only support (other than his own arguments) that Salza provides for such a claim is ONE canon law commentary which states that "[t]he Mass must be celebrated in a Catholic rite, i.e., in the liturgical rite of any Catholic church sui iuris, but not in a church which is not in full communion with the Catholic Church, although using a Catholic liturgical rite." However, as I above this commentary is edited not by the Vatican or any of its departments but by a group of three canon lawyers who represent a group of canonists called the Canon Law Society of America. This commentary has no magisterial authority and doesn't speak with the authority of the Holy See. In fact the book from which this commentary is taken has been found to contain some serious errors in theology. Furthermore, this commentary is contradicted by the previous canon law commentaries I have listed which indicate that a Catholic-for a "good reason"-can satisfy their Sunday obligation by attendance at a non-Catholic "Orthodox" church and participation in any Eucharistic celebration fulfills the Sunday obligation even if not celebrated "legitimately".
But for the sake of argument let us assume that, as Salza's canon law commentary states, in order to fulfill a Catholic's Sunday obligation "[t]he Mass must be celebrated... in the liturgical rite of any Catholic church sui iuris, but not in a church which is not in full communion with the Catholic Church, although using a Catholic liturgical rite." A Catholic church sui iuris (latin for "of its own law") is, according to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches as follows: "A community of Christian faithful, which is joined together by a hierarchy according to the norm of law which is expressly or tacitly recognized as sui iuris by the supreme authority of the Church is called in this code a Church sui iuris" (CCEO can. 27).
"The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments, and the same government. They combine into different groups which are held together by their hierarchy, and so form particular churches or rites" (Orientalium Ecclesiarum no. 2). [See here: Chapter 1 :- Church Sui iuris & Rite (weebly.com)] There are currently 24 Churches sui iuris, 23 such Churches are considered Eastern Catholic Churches and only one is Western (or Latin) Church. All such Churches together make up the Catholic Church and are in full communion. (Ibid).
In a study on the juridic status of the SSPX published by the Faculty of Canon Law of Saint Paul University in Ottawa it was concluded:
- 'The SSPX is comprised entirely of clergy of the [Western] Latin Church and lacks any externally verifiable marks that would refute this. [T]he response [by the Holy See] to ["]remit["] the ["]excommunications[" of the SSPX bishops]... manifests acknowledgment by the Holy See that the SSPX is indeed part of the [Western] Latin Church and subject to the laws thereof; not some other entity to which ecclesiastical law does not apply... The SSPX is not a sister Church to Catholicism since the SSPX is not some other Church; they are our Catholic brothers and sisters in need of prayerful, charitable and pastoral attention in order to make full their incomplete and tenuous communion.' (See here: II (uottawa.ca)).
Therefore, because the SSPX is part of the Western (or Latin) Church and their priests are clergy of the Latin Church and because the Latin Church is a Church sui iuris in full communion then a good argument can be made that attendance at a Mass of the SSPX fulfills the Sunday obligation. And it is irrelevant if the SSPX clergy are not in "full communion", "suspended", have "no legitimate ministry" (although they do certainly with regards to confessions and weddings done in cooperation with the local diocese). What matters, according to Salza's own commentary, is that "the Mass be celebrated in the liturgical rite of any Catholic Church sui iuris" regardless of whether that Mass is "legitimately" celebrated. It seems clear that the Masses celebrated by the SSPX fall into this category.
So I would rely more on the replies from the Vatican's Ecclesia Dei commission than unreliable comments from a few canon lawyers especially when there are conflicting opinions as to where I can and cannot get my Sunday Mass obligation. And no, it is not irrelevant whether Father Z worked for Ecclesia Dei. His having worked there is relevant in that he is familiar with the thinking of that commission in a way that others who have not worked there do not have. So we should give more weight to Father Z's opinions regarding the intent and interpretation behind Ecclesia Dei's letters on SSPX Mass attendance than someone, like Salza, who never worked there. And where does Salza get the idea that replies from the Ecclesia Dei commission only apply upon the person whom the reply was intended for? Even if that is the case then according to him (if he is being intellectually honest) then I myself should be able to attend SSPX Masses without sin and receive my Sunday obligation there as that is the response I received from a letter from Ecclesia Dei.
And no, I dispute his assertion that Ecclesia Dei's replies except one forbade Catholics from attending SSPX Masses except where there is no "recourse to a Catholic church" or receiving Communion there. I've read them, including the letter I received. First, Salza presumes that the SSPX is outside the Catholic church when in reality the SSPX is within the Catholic Church. See these statements by Church officials to show why:
- In Protocol number 2336/94 of May 3, 1994 by the then President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity Cardinal Edward Cassidy who stated that "[T]he Directory on Ecumenism is not concerned with the Society of St. Pius X. The situation of the members of this Society is an internal matter of the Catholic Church. The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the meaning used in the Directory." (See here).
- Pope Francis has stated that the Society of St. Pius X are Catholics. (See here).
- And, the former president of the Ecclesia De Commission Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos had stated the following regarding the SSPX when he was president of Ecclesia Dei: "We are not confronted with a heresy. It cannot be said in correct, exact, and precise terms that there is a schism. There is a schismatic attitude in the fact of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate. They [the SSPX] are within the Church. There is only the fact that a full, more perfect communion is lacking-as was stated during the meeting with Bishop Fellay-a fuller communion, because communion does exist." (See here). Later the Cardinal reinforced his earlier declaration that the SSPX is within the Church, that they are not in schism, and that they are within and in communion with the Church: 'Please, accept that I reject the term "ecumenism ad intra". The Bishops, Priests, and Faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics. It is Archbishop Lefebvre who has undertaken an illicit Episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason the the Bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated [my note: the "excommunications" were later declared to be lifted]. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics.' (See here).
Therefore, in a study on the juridic status of the SSPX published by the Faculty of Canon Law of Saint Paul University in Ottawa it was concluded that '[t]he Holy See has not recognized the SSPX or treated them as anything other than Catholic. In fact, the Holy See's treatment demonstrates that the SSPX remain Catholic and are thus subject to the laws of the Church, rather than to any ecumenical or interecclesial rules or norms. The response to remit the ["]excommunications["]... manifests acknowledgement by the Holy See that the SSPX is indeed part of the Latin Church and subject to the laws thereof; not some other entity to which ecclesiastical law does not apply...The SSPX is not a sister Church to Catholicism since the SSPX is not some other Church; they are our Catholic brothers and sisters in need of prayerful, charitable and pastoral attention in order to make full their incomplete and tenuous communion. The supreme authority of the Church and the leadership of the SSPX have never challenged that "the situation of the members of this Society is an internal matter of the Catholic Church." (See here).
Second, the secretary of the Ecclesia Dei commission has indicated more than once that 1) you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the SSPX, and 2) no sin is incurred in mere attendance at an SSPX Mass, and 3) there is no penalty or canonical delict in mere attendance at an SSPX Mass. Furthermore, in more than one of these replies the secretary of the commission has not stated that the only condition for attendance at SSPX chapels can only be done only if there are no other Catholic churches available. Here is what letters from Ecclesia Dei have said:
- In Protocol 539/99 dated September 28, 1999 the Ecclesia Dei Commission stated that "the faithful... may attend Mass there [at chapels of the Society of Saint Pius X] primarily because of an attraction to the earlier form of the Roman Rite in which case they incur no penalty." (See here). There is no statement in this protocol that attendance at an SSPX chapel requires that there be no other Catholic Mass available. Nor does the protocol forbid reception of communion at the SSPX chapel.
- On September 27, 2002 the Secretary for the Vatican's Ecclesia Dei Commission responded to a letter by an individual by stating: "you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X." The individual also asked: "Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass"? The Vatican responded by stating: "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."
- In a follow-up communication the secretary for Ecclesia Dei again reiterated that "you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X... [and] [i]f 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." (See here). There is no statement in either of these two letters that attendance at an SSPX Mass requires that there be no other Catholic Mass available. Nor do these letters forbid reception of communion at an SSPX Mass.
- Furthermore, in a personal letter sent to me by the same secretary of Ecclesia Dei I was informed that I can 1) fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the SSPX and 2) it would not be a sin for me to participate in their Mass so long as I did not intend to do so with a schismatic intention (i.e. such as wanting to separate myself from the Pope and/or my bishop). There was no statement in this letter that attendance at an SSPX Mass requires that there be no other Catholic Mass available. Nor did this letter forbid reception of communion at an SSPX Mass.
- And in a letter dated May 28, 2008 the Ecclesia Dei commission stated that "Catholics who frequent the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X do not incur any sin or canonical delict by doing so." (See here). Like in previous letters there is no statement in this letter that attendance at an SSPX chapel requires that there be no other Catholic Mass available. Nor did this letter forbid reception of communion at an SSPX chapel.
A good case where a group of Catholics were punished for their support of the SSPX and then had that punishment overturned was the case of the "Hawaii Six". In that case a group of six lay persons (called the Hawaii Six) attended an SSPX chapel in Honolulu, Hawaii and utilized the services of an SSPX bishop in the sacrament of confirmation. The local diocesan bishop found out about this and declared these individuals excommunicated for schism because of their use of an SSPX bishop (Williamson) for the sacrament of confirmation "but also by that very association with the aforementioned bishop..." The diocesan bishop also accused these individuals of, among other things, "impugning the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the Roman Missal (1970) [otherwise known as the Novus Ordo Mass (NOM)] and further aligning yourselves with the Pius X schismatic movement..."
However, the diocesan bishop was later overruled and the excommunications were declared "null and void" by the then Cardinal Ratzinger who was at the time the head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).
On behalf of Cardinal Ratzinger the Apostolic Pro-Nuncio wrote the following in regards to the diocesan bishop's excommunication decree:
And Cardinal Ratzinger himself, as head of the Vatican's CDF, ruled that: "[T]his Congregation, [the CDF] noting all of the above, is obliged to declare null and void the aforesaid Decree [of excommunication] of the Ordinary of Honolulu." (See here.)
So my arguments are not "nothing more than an appeal to Fr. Z". I have provided other arguments and I am not here going to rehash them all right now regardless of Salza's demands. I have already done a lot at the moment. Responses from me will be given at the time, place, and manner I determine and not by Salza. And I presume Father Z will do the same on his behalf.
[1] In another canon law commentary on canon 1248 published by the Canon Law Society of America (CLSA) in the year 2000 it stated that "[t]he former Ecumenical Directory of 1967 granted a privilege permitting Catholics to fulfill their Sunday obligation and holy day obligation at the divine liturgy of a separated Eastern church. [..] This privilege was suppressed in the 1993 Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms on Ecumenism." However, the canon law commentary that was published by the canon law society of Great Britain & Ireland that indicated it was possible for a Catholic to satisfy their Sunday and holy day obligation at a Mass in an Orthodox church for a "good reason" was published in 1995. This is two years after the privilege Catholics had to fulfill their Sunday and holy day obligation at the divine liturgy of a separated Eastern church was allegedly suppressed according to the CLSA's year 2000 commentary. One might argue that it is speculative to believe that the canon law society of Great Britain & Ireland knew about the "suppression" of the privilege especially since no mention of the 1993 Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms on Ecumenism was mentioned in their 1995 commentary on canon 1248. But it is also speculative to assume, without a statement from the author of this canon law commentary, that the canon law society didn't know about the "suppression". In any event, as I argue further on, either interpretation of canon 1248 permits Catholics the possibility of satisfying their Sunday and holy day obligation by attendance at an SSPX Mass.
RSS Feed
