Because this detail was basically overlooked, and it is a subject of grave importance, I am posting it on its own thread.  To put it into greater context one must read the Open Letter to Fr. Pfeiffer which can be found at...                                  

http://brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/2014/11/open-letter-to-fr-joseph-pfeiffer.html


The delicate subject of the Communicatio in sacris was addressed in the Open Letter, which never received a reply of any sort as of today.  I am convinced that it is not a matter which any Traditional Catholic can ignore.  There is a grave error to be found, which whether you support Fr. Pfeiffer completely or not, everyone should be asking him to clarify on this issue.  If you support Fr. Pfeiffer, and after understanding the issue of this error, you deliberately choose to support him on this error, I am publicly calling into question your belief in the Catholic religion and simply suggesting that perhaps being loyal to Fr. Pfeiffer is more important to you than being loyal to Christ's Church.

Fact: The SSPX celebrates, without exceptions, the 1962 Tridentine rite of the Mass.


fact The communicatio in sacris is a sin and a canonical crime. In order for the canonical crime of communicatio in sacris, canon law requires certain specific requirements. One of these requirements is that the rite is "non-Catholic". This requirement is sine qua non. The Tridentine Mass is not a non-Catholic rite, so one can never commit the crime of communicatio in sacris assisting a true Tridentine Mass.


Fact  The "Catholic Encyclopedia" says: "Communicatio in sacris, i.e. active participation in non-Catholic religious functions...".
www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=5695
Prümmer, "Manuale Theologiae Moralis", Herder, 1961, T 1, n° 522 (boock used in the SSPX) says: "Communicatio religiosa seu in sacris... est positiva, quando catholicus participat in culto hereticu aut infideli" ("Communicatio religiosa seu in sacris... is positive, when a Catholic participates in the heretical or infidel religious services [cult]") ...



Fact:As cited in the Open Letter, Fr. Pfeiffer has publicly asserted that attending any SSPX Mass would be a sin-crime of Communicatio in sacris.  This recording is public and anyone can find various sites that have published this and attempted to bind the faithful's conscience to this error.  Fr. Pfeiffer, because this error was public, should publicly have to recant this error due to the devestating effects that it has caused to the common good.  As of today, he has not.

Conclusion  One may well conclude that Fr. Pfeiffer does not understand the term Communicatio in sacris, or that he is deliberately being deceptive.  The only other option to be concluded is that he does not believe that the 1962 rite of the Mass IS a valid Catholic rite; I do not believe that this is the case, but because his words are public and the grave error is present, he is obligated to retract under the pain of grave sin if he understands the danger and damage he has caused to the salvation of souls.  If the reader has come to understand what this means and holds to this position, he also has an obligation to withdraw this position of a priest that propagates and obliges such grave errors onto the Catholic faithful.


Adverse thoughts and opinions on this topic are most certainly welcome. Before responding please read both responses from a resistance priest, which can be found added as updates to the Open Letter on the link provided or also on the thread of this forum.  Thanks.

In Christo Rege,
Michael Fuller

My response to this?  My message that I posted just before you did. You were apparently in the process of composing yours when I posted mine, so you didn't see it.

Yep.  That happens sometimes.  I click reply, but then it takes me a while to finish the post (get distracted or whatever).

However, there are good reasons that we can avoid other Catholics without using that term. In cases where there is some danger, either doctrinal or moral, we can avoid other Catholics. The most common example is when a parent forbids their son from associating with the Catholic boy from next door because the boy swears and tells dirty jokes. The avoidance of a Catholic doesn't mean we are saying he is not a Catholic, but a dangerous Catholic.

The biggest example in Church history I can think of is when St. Athanasius and his remnant followers completely avoided the churches of the Arians even before the Church officially condemned them.

No, this isn't about a mere avoidance.  This is about telling people that they cannot assist at SSPX Masses, even to the point that they should not fulfill their Sunday obligation rather than to assist.  That's a severing of Communion.  

In terms of other types of "avoidance", one has to identify an actual concrete POSITIVE danger at specific SSPX locations, not just make a blanket statement about the SSPX.  Yes, if you had a priest, for instance, telling graphic dirty jokes from the pulpit and doing obscene things during Mass, that would justify avoidance of a lesser kind than a severing of communion, but the threat has to be concretely identified and not based on some negative doubt type of "danger to the faith".

In other contexts, however, Father Pfeiffer has REPEATEDLY implied that the SSPX are no longer Catholic.

As for the Arians, we can all agree that these were heretics DESPITE no official condemnation.  And if Father Pfeiffer can demonstrate a case for HERESY, then that's a different story.  Which is why we must DEMAND that he articulate why the SSPX are not Catholic.  Your red herring here is the implication that every group requires explicit condemnation by the Church.

Father Pfeiffer needs to either

A) SUBSTANTIATE THE CHARGE THAT THE SSPX ARE NOT CATHOLIC

or

B) RETRACT THE PROHIBITION OF "COMMUNICATIO IN SACRIS"

non datur tertium

Quote from: Centroamerica

Fact: The SSPX celebrates, without exceptions, the 1962 Tridentine rite of the Mass.

That is not quite true.  In more than 20 years, I have not seen one single mass at the SSPX's chapels in which they follow —ad pedem litterae— the 1962 missal.  And, when I have the opportunity to check the altar missal, I have noticed that it is the first 1962 edition the one the priest use, rather than the second one, which comes with the canon modified.

It's the 1962 liturgy.  No other group as large as them offers exclusively the 1962 Traditional Mass, like they do.  The entire comment as a way of trying to debunk an undisputed fact is completely off beat.  If the SSPX does not entirely and uniformly offer the 1962 liturgy, then provide a source rather than simply commenting, "well I saw their missals and its the 2nd version".  These sorts of responses miss the point and are weak attempts to draw emphasis away from the real problem: is it an authentic and licit rite celebrated by Catholics?

Quote from: Ladislaus

You are mixing, matching, and misapplying principles.

Off-topic anyway.

Fr. Pfeiffer referred to communicatio in sacris -- he needs to clarify what he meant.

Either he had no idea what he was talking about (in which case he needs to step down as the SSPX-SO leader for that reason alone) or

he needs to justify his allegation that SSPX are not Catholics.

He has explained it correctly as a moral obligation, he is just using the wrong term for the explanation. And, again, he doesn't have to say they are not Catholic. He only needs to say there is a serious danger.

He has stated unambiguously that every individual priest is guilty of wickedness of doctrine and that if we attend their Masses then we are in communion with them and that this would be an offense of communicatio in sacris.  I mean he did go into a little bit of detail; he didn't just start pointing saying "communicatio in sacris!" He did go into detail, so to say that he is not saying that they are not Catholic is completely false.

No other priest of the resistance that I know believes that Fr. Pfeiffer is the leader of the resistance.  The whole idea is comical to me.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Ladislaus

You are mixing, matching, and misapplying principles.

Off-topic anyway.

Fr. Pfeiffer referred to communicatio in sacris -- he needs to clarify what he meant.

Either he had no idea what he was talking about (in which case he needs to step down as the SSPX-SO leader for that reason alone) or

he needs to justify his allegation that SSPX are not Catholics.

He has explained it correctly as a moral obligation, he is just using the wrong term for the explanation. And, again, he doesn't have to say they are not Catholic. He only needs to say there is a serious danger.

Then you are saying

Quote from: Ladislaus

he had no idea what he was talking about (in which case he needs to step down as the SSPX-SO leader for that reason alone)

What?

 :scratchchin:

Could you at least clarify your position: Do you believe each and every SSPX Mass must be avoided because it means we will be in communion with them and their doctrine? This is precisely what Fr. Pfeiffer has stated.  Do you agree with that?

Quote from: Centroamerica

No other priest of the resistance that I know believes that Fr. Pfeiffer is the leader of the resistance.  The whole idea is comical to me.

That's why I said SSPX-SO, you know the Vienna 5 or whatever they were; they "elected" him their leader at that point.

So then that is true?  I mean I had seen it mentioned before on these forums, but sometimes the people supporting Fr. Pfeiffer will say anything.  The Vienna 5? Fr. P, Fr. Hewko, Fr. Viogt, Fr. Chazal, and Fr. Ringrose?  Is that correct?  Is there a source or blog that has posted anything about this?  I want to know more.

Fr. Ringrose is the independent priest where DAW attends Mass, right?  I could hardly see him going along with this.