Author Topic: PCED Not Even Talking About Official SSPX Affiliated Chapel  (Read 1055 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline stevusmagnus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3728
  • Reputation: +824/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • h
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Even so, the PCED ruling makes no sense, as the Trad priest whose Chapel it is has said on Rorate that he is not excommunicated and his Bishop knows what he's been up to for 5 years. See comments section...

    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/for-record-new-pced-letter-on-sspx.html

    For the record: new PCED letter on Sunday obligation
    Update: important clarification - not listed as SSPX or SSPX-friendly venue

    Clarification (2100 GMT): Following our request for a clarification, we have been informed by the US District of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) that the chapel mentioned in the letter below is not a chapel of the Society and that, while its specific name was expressly mentioned by the sender in the deleted data, it is NOT included in the public list of chapels, including those other chapels identified by the Society publicly as 'Friends of the Society of St. Pius X'. It is very possible that this information, easily researched online on the website of the U. S. District, might have led someone in the Commission to believe that this specific chapel, which is not listed by them and not one of the "Friends of the Society of Saint Pius X" or "other traditional (non-SSPX) venues", is a venue with no affiliation whatsoever with  the SSPX and led to this different appraisal by the Commission.

    For the point of view of the Society of Saint Pius X on their masses and sacraments, please visit their website.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4431
    • Reputation: +4005/-1318
    • Gender: Male
    PCED Not Even Talking About Official SSPX Affiliated Chapel
    « Reply #1 on: May 31, 2012, 09:42:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Lex dubia non obligat.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline QOM

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 2
    • Reputation: +10/-0
    PCED Not Even Talking About Official SSPX Affiliated Chapel
    « Reply #2 on: May 31, 2012, 10:39:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: stevusmagnus
    Even so, the PCED ruling makes no sense, as the Trad priest whose Chapel it is has said on Rorate that he is not excommunicated and his Bishop knows what he's been up to for 5 years. See comments section...

    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/for-record-new-pced-letter-on-sspx.html

    For the record: new PCED letter on Sunday obligation
    Update: important clarification - not listed as SSPX or SSPX-friendly venue

    Clarification (2100 GMT): Following our request for a clarification, we have been informed by the US District of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) that the chapel mentioned in the letter below is not a chapel of the Society and that, while its specific name was expressly mentioned by the sender in the deleted data, it is NOT included in the public list of chapels, including those other chapels identified by the Society publicly as 'Friends of the Society of St. Pius X'. It is very possible that this information, easily researched online on the website of the U. S. District, might have led someone in the Commission to believe that this specific chapel, which is not listed by them and not one of the "Friends of the Society of Saint Pius X" or "other traditional (non-SSPX) venues", is a venue with no affiliation whatsoever with  the SSPX and led to this different appraisal by the Commission.


    Since the priest who ministers to the chapel in question identified himself, one may deduce which chapel is being referenced in the letter.  The SSPX USA District website may not have it on its listing of chapels, but the SSPX Priory of St. Thomas More in Sanford, FL most certainly shows it as one of the "Florida Chapels" on its website:

    St. Thomas More Priory: Florida Chapels

    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    PCED Not Even Talking About Official SSPX Affiliated Chapel
    « Reply #3 on: June 01, 2012, 08:11:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thanks for the clarifications.

    It is not 100% reliable to base predictions on these private PCED letters. However, I think decision could signal that any Roman deal with the Society will not necessarily include "friends of the Society." I'm thinking the affiliated independent Chapels will need to somehow formally become part of the regularized Society or else make peace with their local Bishop for the Society to affiliate with them. I think from Rome's perspective they have to do this so that all the priests they regularize are "under them" in some sort of way. Rome can't have "free agent" priests out there who are regularized but accountable to nobody. This might create a problem as many Traditional independent priests who have been working with the Society may not want to give up their freedom to formally join them. Then again, the Society could make a provision for them, allowing them to function as is and stay put. Nevertheless, these formally independent priests would, in the end, need to take orders from Bishop Fellay and the District Superior.

    If regularization happens I see the majority of the Society going with Bishop Fellay with a minority contingent sticking with independent priests and those priests who leave or who are kicked out of the Society for opposing regularization. The problem is, unless all of these priests unite together under one Bishop or leader, they may very well suffer the same fate as the Sede communities and turn into isolated pockets of faithful, eternally splitting and arguing amongst each other. The Society's practical strength was and is its hierarchical organization, seminaries, etc. It was founded well by ABL who had experience with the Holy Ghost Fathers in formation and setting the statutes and running an order, building schools, priories, etc.

    As far as the Sunday obligation is concerned, I'm not sure how Msgr. Pozzo's decision in this case squares with the Canon Law, as Fr. Roberts said on Rorate. The new Canon is very broad. Mass in a Catholic Rite is all that is required. He also points out that in certain circumstances, an Orthodox Mass even fulfills the Sunday obligation under the New Code. At least one objector on Rorate says that "Catholic Rite" may mean a Mass said by a licit priest. But, to me, that makes no sense. The Code refers to the Rite, not who says the Rite. I think we can assume the Code means it to be said by a valid Catholic priest, or else it would be silly. But can we say this canon assumes liciety also? Especially when previous guidance from the PCED seems to have said that Society Masses do fulfill the Sunday obligation? And in this case, Fr. Robert's canonical situation is even more certain than the Society's if he has not been suspended. From what he posted on Rorate it sounds like he is in limbo of sorts.

    The problem is if we interpret "Catholic Rite" broadly, this would mean that assisting at an Old Catholic Mass or a liberal Novus Ordo said by a suspended liberal priest would fulfill the Sunday obligation as well, which would seem ridiculous. Yet both the priests in that scenario, Rome would see as valid priests and the Masses as valid Masses said in a Catholic Rite. Then we are back to the liceity of the Mass, but the Society's Masses are not "licit" in the eyes of Rome, yet I believe the PCED prieviously stated they fulfilled one's Sunday obligation.

    In the end, complete confusion as far as I can see. Does anyone know what the old 1917 Code had to say on this subject? Thanks.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16