Clarification on Schismatic Group

They are protestants in Catholic clothing, choosing, as did the first group of protestants, what meets with their approval, and rejecting the rest.

I’m confused as well. How can a group “continue in schismatic acts” and not be schismatic? If the group is committing “schismatic acts” but is not “schismatic,” perhaps we should call their acts something else? Divisive? Disobedient? I don’t know… I realize that the SSPX is canonically in a different status than Anglicans, but the logic utilized in this post sounds like an argument that an Anglican would make (i.e., it’s possible to be Catholic without being in full communion with the Pope and, in fact, when Papal authority is being challenged). To me, this kind of logic could lead to a whole host of problems. I can see recognizing the apostolic succession of SSPX Bishops (in the same way that Rome recognizes that character in Orthodox Bishops), but it seems possible to have apostolic succession and still be schismatic. Father Longenecker, do you consider the Eastern Orthodox a schismatic group? How are you defining schism? After reading this post, I referenced a theological dictionary that defined it most basically as “a rejection of communion with the authorities of a Church.” This sounds exactly like the actions of the SSPX.

I don’t want to assume anything but I think that Fr. Dwight was being sarcastic. They are in schism just like the Orthodox. This doesn’t invalidate any of the sacraments, it just means that as a movement they are not in communion with Rome. Schism is by definition a break in communion. They have broken communion and are thus in schism. If Bishop Williamson continues spouting the heresy and foolishness that he has been for so long then this schism will continue. While I pray for their reunion with Rome, frankly unless they stop with the fundamentalist banter (an yes they are Catholic fundamentalists, which I think should be considered a heresy) I have no desire for them to return to communion with Rome.

As Humpty Dumpty explained to Alice, words are merely our servants, and we can make them mean whatever we want them to mean.”When I use a word,” the SSPX member said in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.”Of course they’re not in schism, silly, because that would mean that they’re not Catholics, and as everybody knows, they’re the only real Catholics left.

Anonymouses,There is a difference between the individual acts of the Fraternity’s members and its own acts. Yes, the four bishops are in schism, but the Fraternity is not organizationally in schism. Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos has repeatedly and unequivicably stated this and reaffirmed the right of the faithful to hear Mass at FSSPX chapels under certain (and rather broad and permissable) conditions.

pavegs – “This doesn’t invalidate any of the sacraments,”Jurisdiction is required for certain sacraments to be valid, such as confession and marriage. SSPX does not have jurisdiction.

Cardinal Castrillon is a fine man and a worthy bishop, but he is not the Roman Pontiff and his opinions do not have the force of law in the Catholic Church. In fact, since John Paul II promulgated Ecclesia Dei Adflicta in 1988, nothing further has been said about the SSPX schism which does have the force of law; therefore, the pronouncement of John Paul II on this matter, quoted by Father Longenecker in his post, is still normative: the SSPX is in schism and no Catholic should support or encourage them. Anyone who argues otherwise is simply following the lead of Humpty Dumpty, as illustrated above. This fight is not, and never has been, about the Tridentine Mass; this is about who has authority in the Catholic Church to name bishops and govern the liturgy. And here’s a clue: it’s not Marcel Lefebvre. The SSPX schism is also a fight about the truth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, and here’s another clue: the reservations of a group of French monarchists aside, either the Second Vatican Council is the 21st Ecumenical Council of the Church or it is not. And if it is, then everything it teaches on faith and morals binds the conscience of all Catholics, including French monarchists who prefer the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite. A Catholic who rejects, say, Dignitatis Humanae (Vatican II on religious freedom) or Unitatis Redentigratio (Vatican II on Christian unity) has by that fact placed himself outside of communion with the Catholic Church. And we have a word for that condition too: schism.

2:17 Anonymous: the good father is being sarcastic. To very good effect. Most people outside of the SSPX have already figured out that if you run what is, in effect, a parallel church which operates independently of the local ordinary and without permission from Rome, you are in schism.

Fr. Newman,So is anyone who hears Mass on a basis regular or irregular at an SSPX chapel an ‘adherent of the schism?’ in your opinion?Just curious.

Thank you for the document Fr ,I have read it. Nowhere does it state that the SSPX is schismatic. I understand why the Pope may want to discourage association to a group that may fall into schism. I would agree that the reader in inclined to assume due to the wording that the SSPX is in schism. However, the bald fact is that the Pope does not in this document identify SSPX as schismatic. I would happily agree that the wording allows you to read into the document this assumption. However, the Pope refuses to make a simple clear statement that any Pope would not hesitate to make if it were true namely “The SSPX is in schism”. Why? Because the SSPX has never been declared to be in schism. A few Bishops were excommunicated for a schismatic act – illicit ordination. I’m happy to be corrected and I’m not affiliated with SSPX I simply wish to seek the truth in this matter.Benfan

Everyone, Please disregard every word coming from Father Newman. He does not accept the authority of Rome to determine what Her own documents mean. If Father had really paid attention he would know that the Ecclesia Dei commission was formed in order to INTERPRET and APPLY Ecclesia Dei afflicta and was granted the proper authority to speak on behalf of the Holy Father on those matters pertaining to the Missal of 1962 and the Society of St. Pius X. They are either in schism or they are not. Also, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos is either President of Eccliesia Dei or he is not. The truth of the matter is that the schismmatic nature of the SSPX is only an OPINION of Fr. Newman’s that is not only misguided but disobedient. Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos is the President of Ecclesia Dei and has competency to interpret Ecclesia Dei afflicta in a binding manner. Fr. Newman has a problem submitting himself to Roman Authority it appears. Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos who is in more of a position that Fr. Newman to know who is in schism and who isnt, says they are NOT in schism. Do you seriously think that Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI would let Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos (who has stood beside them at altars and balconies and at meetings for years) go spouting off nonsense about the SSPX not being in schism if they really were? Get a dose of reality.Also, why does it matter to Fr. Newman if the SSPX is in schism or not? He has no problem with the heretical Lutherans and Anglicans being in schism (and heresy), otherwise he would not support them in their schismatic behavior.

Anonymous 11:50, Your dealings are dangerous, your words half truths. You hurl insults, you speak yet your words are empty. Please turn from this present evil.Ecclesia Dei Adflicta signed by Pope John Paul II in no uncertain terms marks SSPX schism:”In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.(8)”As far as Fr. Newman’s interest in this matter, this very letter calls him to answer your remarks—if his pastoral duties were not enough. “Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves called upon to answer in the present circumstances.”Ecclesia Dei Adflicta is a short and simple document regarding this schism, and it leaves few lines to read between in regards to SSPX as noted above. Click on my name and it should take you to this Vatican document.

1. Yes, I am a fool–a fool for Christ.2. “Schism” according to the Code of Canon Law “is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” (Canon 751) That is the condition of every bishop and priest in the SSPX.3. “The following are irregular for receiving orders: 2, a person who has committed the delict of apostasy, heresy, or schism” (Canon 1041)4. “The following are irregular for the exercise of the orders received:2, a person who has committed a delict mentioned in canon 1041, n.2 if the delict if public” (Canon 1044)5. “Ignorance of the irregularities and impediments does not exempt from them.” (Canon 1045)6. In sum, every cleric in the SSPX is in schism, and every act of divine worship they celebrate is illicit.7. In fine, yes I regularly consort with Anglicans and Lutherans, and one purpose of that activity is to help them find their way home to the Bishop of Rome. To date I have received a total of six former Protestant ministers into full communion with the Catholic Church. Naturally, that’s small beer compared to the number of schismatics in the SSPX, but I’m just getting started.

Blarg, the dealings of the SSPX and their present situation are putting the souls of many in danger. They should turn away from the present evil they are in. They should submit to the Vicar of Christ.

Newman evaded the issue of canonical positivism.Perhaps he needs to do a degree in common law, or jurisprudence – he would then be more likely to appreciate what legal positivism is, and thus stop indulging in it.Schism is not what the arbitrary will of the pope makes it. The church has already decided that neither Lefebvre or anyone else attached to the SSPX is schismatic – otherwise one is left with the obviously untenable and bankrupt option of saying that St Athanasius, who was far “worse” as regards his ignoring the strictures of canon law in an emergency situation, than Lefebvre in a period of crisis nowhere near as bad as today’s, was schismatic.

Friends, let me put this as simply as I can: those who play with schism are endangering their immortal souls, and there is no justification for this.If a diocesan priest wants to leave his diocese to join, say, the Benedictines or the Dominicans, then (after the appropriate discernment process), his bishop must let him go.If, on the other hand, a diocesan priest wants to leave his diocese to join the SSPX, then his bishop is canonically and morally obliged to do everything in his power to prevent it, including the use of sanctions that start with suspension of the priest’s faculties and end with his excommunication. Joining the SSPX, in other words, places any priest outside the Catholic Church.Moreover, if the priest in question does join the SSPX (thereby committing the ecclesial crime of schism), he will have to submit to re-ordination if his ordination to the priesthood was administered from the liturgical books of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. This is because the SSPX holds the validity of such ordinations to be at least doubtful. (This, by the way, is one of the reasons the once Catholic apologist Gerry Matatics has spun off into the lunatic fringe of sede vacantism.) Not put to find a point on it: attempting to re-ordain a man who has been ordained is sacrilege pure and simple.Finally, if Benedict XVI called the Third Vatican Council this afternoon, the bishops of the SSPX would not be seated as Fathers of the Council. This is because they are not bishops of the Catholic Church. They may validly possess the episcopal character, but so does the Patriarch of Constantinople. And he’s in schism too.This is what I mean by a Humpty Dumpty view of reality: If it is not self-evident that the bishops and priests of the SSPX are in schism, then right reason has simply been abandoned, and no wrangling with words will make it otherwise.Schism is a grave sin against the unity of the Church which the Savior wills for us, and there is no justification for aiding schism, abetting schism, winking at schism, playing with schism, pretending that schism isn’t schism, or trying to rationalize schism by pointing to things in the Church we don’t like. So, Anonymous, I assume you’re rising to the defense of the SSPX because you think what they’re doing is defensible. It is not, and nothing could ever make it to be so. And that’s not my opinion; it’s the constant teaching of the Catholic Church, applied quite pointedly and specifically to the SSPX by Pope John Paul II. And it is a simple fact of law and history that the judgment of John Paul II given in 1988 has not ever been modified in the least degree, whether by him or his successor. Until and unless the Sovereign Pontiff by an authoritative act changes the canonical situation of the bishops and priests of the SSPX, they are and will continue to be separated from communion with the Catholic Church. And that step could be taken by him only when the bishops and priests in question submit to his authority and accept the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, something they have shown no signs of doing. Quite the contrary. Since the promulgation of Summorum Pontificum, the bishops of the SSPX have made it increasingly clear that the reason for their schism is not and never was about the shape of the sacred liturgy. It’s about the Council, particularly the teaching in Dignitatis Humanae and Unitatis Redentigratio.

Dear Humpty Dumpty,May the LORD of mercies put you back together again.Have a blessed Passiontide and Paschal Triduum.

Okay, guys…so, I think that settles that. The SSPX is not in schism because Cardinal Castrillon of the Ecclesia Dei said so. We should accept the informal statement of the cardinal as the real state of affairs because ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE what he says reflects the mind of the Supreme Pontiff….Yes, indeed, that why we are also to believe that the Holy Father is revising the list of mortal sins. An archbishop from the Apostolic Penitentiary just declared such list in an interview. He too speaks for the Holy Father ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE because he belongs to the pontifical tribunal for the internal forum….So, for all of you out there, especially Fr. Newman, repent! Accept these informal declarations! And from now on, reject the solemn decrees of an ecumenical council!…To everyone and all, a grace-filled Holy Week.

I can no longer separate the sarcasm and parody from the ad homs and vitriol.The people who are adamant that the sspx is in formal schism aren’t helping their cause because they sound like a pack of mad dogs. At the same time the people who are defending the sspx are making this more about Fr. Newman than (and here you need to use your best bp. williamson voice, throw in the hand gestures because it helps) the “reality” of the crisis in the Church (at least in the United States). Vilifying Fr Newman serves no useful purpose because he’s not actually the villain, the villains are slightly above his pay grade.Meanwhile playing “your bishops are goofier than our bishops” is a game we simply can not win. Three words: Roger Cardinal Mahoney. Faithful Catholics face the choice of risking their immortal souls by “playing with schism” or throwing the dice and playing the numbers with their own children by sending them to the PSR. Point a loaded shotgun or a flamethrower at your head, whoo-hoo! Not an easy choice for anyone to make.

Sorry for length but I have been holding my tongue as long as I could stand it………. I have to waste a few more words on this one.I do not mean to be curt and I do not mean to offend but ……… On Athanasius–This came from a Tan bookBelonging to my children and also available online.http://www.tanbooks.com/doct/doctors_church.htmOn a less happy note, we have the equally famous (though disputed) signature of Pope Liberius on a weak Christological statement, known in history as “the fall of Liberius.” Though historians are not unanimous, it is widely agreed that, under duress, Pope Liberius signed an Arian or semi-Arian formula— which he later retracted—and that at one point he signed a condemnation or excommunication of St. Athanasius. This temporary lapse on the part of Pope Liberius is referred to by St. Jerome, by St. Athanasius himself, St. Hilary and by the famous 5thcentury historian Sozomen. Cardinal Newman treats of the fall of Liberius in his The Arians of the Fourth Century. Rev. Alban Butler in his classic Lives of the Saints wrote that Pope Liberius “yielded to the snare laid for him, to the great scandal of the Church. He subscribed the condemnation of St. Athanasius and a confession or creed which had been framed by the Arians at Sirmium. . . .” The document which Pope Liberius signed while in exile was likely that of the first formula of Sirmium. The formula was not heretical, but it was defective and weak because it omitted the term homo-ousios. The case of Pope Liberius passed scrutiny at Vatican Council I (1869-1870), which defined papal infallibility. Liberius, strong defender of Athanasius and of the doctrine of the Council of Nicaea, but weakened by the rigors of exile and apparently hoping to return to Rome, had signed a defective formula. Athanasius mentions the fact in his history of the Arians (Apologia contra Arianos). Pope Liberius’ weakness was both preceded and followed by firmness in upholding the true Catholic teaching. The fall of Liberius was a temporary lapse, of which he soon repented, and Liberius is now Saint Liberius. In these times St. Jerome could express his feelings with the sad exaggeration: “The whole world groaned and was amazed to find itself Arian.” But the symbol of opposition to Arianism, its powerful antagonist, could not be subdued. When Constantius wanted to end the story by killing him, St. Athanasius escaped into the desert. So while yes —SOME historians believe Athanasius was briefly excommunicated by a Pope –it was recanted–what has this got to do with SSPX??? I do not think that SSPX is battling anything akin to Arianism. Lefebvre was not excommunicated by a Pope that was under threat. He was willfully acting in defiance of the Holy See. They have been doing so for years and it has absolutely nothing to do with Arianism or St. Athanasius. Want to talk about rewriting history to suit ones cause…………..how protestant of whoever did this one. Ok I meant that one to be a little curt………….Now am tring to be nice……..Really….really nice.This being said I do attend the “Extraordinary Form” of the Mass when available but I fall in behind Father Newman on the whole SSPX issue. As matter of fact my early resistance to the Traditional Latin Mass stemmed from the association of the TLM and SSPX. So maybe the traditionalist should note the fact that if they want to gain popular support for the TLM and get a weekly Latin Masses in an ordinary parish they should stop touting and defending the acts of SSPX. They kind of make you sound crazy by association since most people have only heard of some of the more “crazy” members of the movement. So may I suggest you just not talk about SSPX and if you could bring yourselves to see their more than obvious faults it would do more to serve your cause than just about anything else. The facts of the matter are Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was excommunicated—I am pretty sure of that one and Cardinal Castrillon said–SSPX members should be welcomed back “with open arms when they seek reconciliation” just not “formally in schism”. All this means is that the Holy Father still has hope for their OBEDIENCE- (in my humble interpretation). Being literal here — I do believe that if you need reconciliation with the Catholic Church — you have seriously sinned and by doing so excommunicated yourself no formality needed. Excommunication is a lack personal unity with the Church.And to take this a step further “a schism” is a break in the unity of the church so while the “schism” may lack formality or formal legality, how can you say that SSPX is in “union” with the Church??? So be it a formal schism or an informal schism—-it exists. Call it what you like. Here is question for a Canon Lawyer does a schism require a formal declaration?? The sacraments are valid at the SSPX Chapels, just like at an Orthodox Church, but by your attending you MAY very well be cutting yourself off from the Church by willfully attending these Masses. My take on this is…………… you are condoning/ thus justifying their bad behavior and in doing so it makes it more likely that you too will start to perform the same or similar sins that will cause your need to reconcile with the Church. So it is a slippery slope you are on.—-Just my very simple take on why you should not support SSPX. So Father Newman and Father Longenecker are morally obligated and justified in tiring to point out these possible errors of both the attendees and the Religious involved. Now it very well be that Lefebvre (all things are possible) will at some point be vindicated for tiring to save the Liturgy of the Church but until then………….maybe we should all try to work within the Church to bring about the changes that need to be made and support the good Priests that are doing their best to bring about the reform of the Liturgy. It maybe slow and not always what and how you envision it. But for the most part at St. Mary’s and Prince of Peace– both in the Greenville area –I only see positive change and I am very grateful to be able attend these parishes often. Maybe some others need to count their blessings and stop ranting like children. Back to the fun and the jest in which this post was intended…………………. Ithink…….Is this what happens when we are all lacking sugar, caffeine, carbonated beverages and warm blooded protein?????????Today is the Feast of St Joseph…………………Do we get the day off Father?????????Father Newman- I look forward to seeing your backside for Easter……………Are we going to see Father Longenecker’s too?? —–covered of course ———with a wonderful vestment fitting for the most holy of occasions. Pax

Here is what Pope Benedict XVI had to say:I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew.Obviously for Fr. Longenecker and Fr. Newman making “every effort” for those who have fallen into error because of tragic “omissions on the part of the Church” in the wake of Vatican II consists of ridiculing them and hurling insults and schism.I wonder, why we never hear surch words about Anglicans, Lutherans or Orthodox (the last being another fine example of the ommissions mentioned by Pope Benedict), despite the fact that they are (contrary to the SSPX) also heretics.

As an Eastern Catholic all of this is amusing to me. Simply put, the Roman custom is to accept legal definitions in order to determine legal sanctions. If Fr. Newman were to write to Cardinal Kasper about the SSPX he would reply that they are not under his jurisdiction. Hm, I wonder what that means? They are not a body that requires “ecumenical dialogue” such as the Orthodox who are both schismatic and heretics. Considering the SSPX lacks both of these traits, they fall under a separate jurisdiction. The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei has jurisdiction in this matter and the Congregation of the Holy Office has supported the judgment of the PCED in the “Honolulu Six” ruling. If you all are going to be the wonderful legalists we Eastern Catholics know and love….at least do it correctly.You continually call for the Society to accept Roman Authority but at the same moment you are refusing to accept the Authority of the very bodies who are involved with the SSPX and their most evident lack of formal schism.Sillyness pure and simple. Stop acting like children and accept the ruling of your Mother, the Church.Why don’t you all go dialogue with the Mohammedans considering that they just brutally murdered one of our Archbishops. Perhaps your most persuasive satire can turn their hearts from Satan.Or perhaps all of you “the SSPX is in schism because they fit my definition of schism” people are of the same mold as the “Islam is a religion of peace” crowd. Delusional.

I for one, thing Fr Longenecker and Fr Newman are both right. Really this is just silly word games. Perhaps our efforts would be better spent in prayers for true unity.

Brian, I think you misspelled your own last name.

“Anon 01:28 and 06:31: I responded to your calumny against St. Athanasius in the 10th comment on this thread so you are either blind or a liar.”F****** imbecile.St A. intruded bishops he had consecrated without papal mandate into already occupied sees, and sent a letter to Pope Liberius, in which he denied communion with that wretched pope. The church’s attitude is that A. was not schismatic. Intellectually bankrupt catholics of the 19c (and now the 21c) try to play all this down, as it is fatal to their case. Lefebvre has done less. You are mired in the pig-swill of subjectivism.I’m beginning to think that perhaps the remedy is an extermination campaign against ultramontanists, just another species of modernist, enemies of Christ that they are.

Brian M”e”rshon has been on retreat in Oklahoma at Clear Creek and out of cell phone range for over 24 hours. Don’t bother trying to stir the pot by dragging him into this, he won’t be back in the 21st century until Sunday night.

“Anon 12:24: Bring it on SSPX boy.”Moronic half-wit.I’m not an “SSPX boy”.I’m a lawyer fully alive to the canonical ramifications of the situation who cannot tolerate your intellectual bankruptcy.I’m just guessing, but are you by some chance an effete little queen??

In case any sad people out there are still reading this thread…James nicely apologizes for the ungentlemanly response…Thank you.I was tempted to delete the more vitriolic comments on this thread, but thought I would let them stand because the people posting condemn themselves with their foul language, rage and total lack of humility, charity and sense proportion and sense of humor.

Mr. Mershon is correct. I suppose that the one who posted as Brian Murshon deliberately misspelled his name to make it clear that the post was a satire or a ruse, but since a cloak of anonymity is possible in the blogosphere, as it is not in almost any other public forum, it is essential that the names of others not be used even in jest.Over at Titus One Nine, Dr. Kendall Harmon has turned off comments at least through Holy Week because the level of hateful vitriol had turned his site into a toxic waste dump. This is the dark side of a very useful technology, and all of us would do well to be mindful of the spiritual danger hiding in the temptation to say anything which pops into our heads, starting with me. But this is most especially true of those who post anonymously.

To Anonymous who also claims to be a lawyer who gets the ramifications:You keep stating that the Ecclesia Dei Commission is charged with authoritatively interpreting Ecclesia Dei. They’re not. Legislative documents such as the motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei, are authoritatively interpreted by 1. The Holy Father and 2. The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts (PCILT).So, what has the PCILT authoritatively decreed in regard to Lefevbre and the issue of schism? Well, I’m glad you asked. They said, in 1996: “The whole Lefebvrian movement is to be held schismatic.” So, no matter what Card Hoyos decides to say in a newspaper interview, the PCILT decree and the motu proprio remain in force when they state clearly that the SSPX is in schism.Maybe you should check how the laws actually work and which Vatican offices retain competant authority before spouting off next time. That way you won’t come off as so much of a pompous and laughably uninformed ass clown.

These conversations about the SSPX and the traditionalist movement reveal so much vitriol, negativity, lack of charity, and general unhappiness that two things are abundantly clear: 1. We, on the blogosphere, will not definitively solve any of these issues. 2. A genuine friendship with Jesus Christ is missing from of the lives of many who have commented. I would ask you to consider this: If this were the picture of the Catholic Church most Protestants, non-Christians, and even lukewarm Catholics had, could we really expect them to want to be or to remain Catholic? The internet makes it possible that those who have no other experience with the Catholic Church may encounter her for the first time through very popular blogs like this one. We should thus behave in this forum in a such a way as to neither embarrass ourselves nor actively drive others away from the Faith. Also, the way many good and decent priests who seek to do the will of Christ and the Church are treated, especially by the defenders and apologists of the SSPX, on this blog and elsewhere, is really horrendous. Not only may we turn souls away by our attitudes and comments online, but I suspect we may also drive away vocations to the priesthood. What enthusiastic, healthy young man would want to mess with the nonsense, the names, and attacks that have been made against Fr Newman and others on this and other blogs?This Holy Week let us return to the LORD.

In the Greenville SC area there is no cause at all for any Catholic to frequent an SSPX chapel. The Latin Mass is provided at Prince of Peace, and a formal and reverent form of the Novus Ordo is provided at St Mary’s.There can only therefore be two reasons for attending an SSPX chapel:1. The individual believes the Novus Ordo masses are defective or invalid. This clearly goes against Summorum Pontificum.2. The individual prefers the Latin Mass. This goes against the Vatican’s instruction that the faithful not support the SSPX.Either decision puts the individual in a disobedient and rebellious situation regarding the rightful authority, and therefore to attend an SSPX is, de facto, a schismatic act.

Anonymous (7:46):You must be joking! You clearly do not understand the desire of some, or possibly many, adherents of the Traditional Mass. It’s not just a matter of preference for the old rite, although that is a major part of it. But there is often a desire to live the spirituality that is inherent in the older forms of worship and that just plain do not exist in the new Mass and in the new calendar.Let me give an example. In most diocese in the US, the bishops have decided that Ascension Thursday actually falls on a Sunday. How is a faithful Catholic supposed to celebrate feasts in the Church when the Church herself can’t celebrate them properly.Let me give another example: ember days. These days, which were pretty much wiped out with the new calendar, are traditional days of fasting in the old calendar. A time for doing penance? You won’t find too much of that in any Novus Ordo parish.The Holy Father made use of the phrase “lex orandi, lex credendi” in his motu proprio. When someone lives in the traditional calendar and with the traditional Mass, they can find more meaningful spirituality than in the Novus Ordo calendar.You correctly say that Prince of Peace has the traditional Mass. What you slyly omit is the fact that Fr. Brovey only celebrates the old Mass once a month. What is someone supposed to do all those other weeks when he desires the spirituality of the old Mass? He must go out of town. The SSPX Mass in NC is the nearest option, although I’ve heard of some people driving as far as Atlanta as well.And you give far too much credit to St. Mary’s. OK, there’s certainly a sense of reverence about the Novus Ordo proceedings there, I’ll grant you that. But where’s the use of Latin that was called for in Vatican II? Where’s the use of Gregorian Chant that was called for in Vatican II? St. Mary’s might be better than most Novus Ordo parishes, but people who’ve actually seen a Novus Ordo Mass celebrated according to the rubrics as laid out by the concilar fathers know that the St. Mary’s Masses are not the be-all, end-all that some people make them out to be.Finally, you said “There can only therefore be two reasons for attending an SSPX chapel: 1. The individual believes the Novus Ordo masses are defective or invalid. This clearly goes against Summorum Pontificum. 2. The individual prefers the Latin Mass. This goes against the Vatican’s instruction that the faithful not support the SSPX.”First of all, your conclusions are complete non-sequitors and are also incorrect, especially the second. The Vatican, in fact, said that it is permissible for the faithful to assist at an SSPX Mass, provided that their reason for doing so is an adherence to the old Mass rather than to foment schism. Given that the Latin Mass situation in the upstate is woefully lacking, the SSPX is a completely viable option.Sorry, but you are wrong.

Carolina Catholic has taken a lot of words to say, “I dissent from official church teaching and support a schism because I know best and want to do things my way.”

“St. Athanasius was rightful Patriarch of Alexandria and did not require permission to install bishops, etc. Since he was never out of communion with the Pope and properly exercised his patriarchal authority none of his actions were schismatic or irregular.”Nonsense. He intruded “uncanical” bishops into already occupied sees. Nothing could possibly be more irregular.

patrick:As a matter of fact, I was referring to the letter by Msgr Perl, but you are incorrect in your conclusions and I will explain why.Yes, Msgr Perl was writing a letter to an individual, but the purpose of the letter was not to grant a dispensation to the individual so that he might assist at an SSPX Mass, but rather to clarify the licitness of doing so. As such, the licitness cannot refer to that individual alone. Further, Msgr Perl, about a year after the initial letter, wrote another letter to Una Voce clarifying the intent of the first letter, as some but not all of the contents of the first letter had been made public. In this second letter Msgr Perl made clear his intention that the contents be made public and clarified in the public, not private, arena.Finally, in his letters Msgr Perl specifically referred to the question of sinfulness in assisting at an SSPX Mass; it was there that he made quite clear that it was NOT sinful to assist at such a Mass, provided that the reason for doing so was simply to pray the old Mass (rather than foster a schismatic mentality). Unless you have fallen into the heresy of relativism, you will realize that if assisting at such a Mass is not sinful for one person, it will neither be sinful for another person who has the same disposition.As for the notion of the spirituality of the Novus Ordo Mass being superior to that of the Tridentine Mass, you are entitled to your opinion, even though your opinion is not grounded in fact. If the Novus Ordo were spiritually superior, then we would not have seen a vast exodus of Catholics from the churches in the last 40 years. We would not have seen a severe decline in vocations. And we sure would not have seen an increase in guitars, drums, liturgical dancers, etc. in the Novus Ordo Mass. I’ll give you a link to a recent article that discusses this quite well: http://calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=838330af-5304-431f-b7e4-587ed3244fc1And as for Anonymous 6:15 – You have taken very few words and have said nothing at all.

patrick:Once again you have missed the point. Whether the PCED “recommends” or doesn’t the attendance at an SSPX is immaterial to the fact that it is not SINFUL. That is my point. If Msgr Perl indicates to one person that it is not sinful to assist at an SSPX Mass (provided he has the proper reasons), then it will not be sinful for anyone else either.Sure, given the fact that the SSPX is not canonically regularized with Holy Mother Church, the PCED obviously cannot recommend that people attend Mass there. But when so many priests and bishops refuse to grant the right (yes, whether you like it or not we now have the right) to the traditional Mass to the faithful, we must sometimes take extraordinary steps (pun intended). If priests like Fr. Newman or Fr. Longenecker get bent out of shape about it, why don’t they step up to the plate and offer the traditional Mass? They like to whine about people leaving the Novus Ordo Mass for the SSPX, but unless they take steps to offer the traditional Mass, they ought to just hush up about it.Yes, I cited some of the more flagrant abuses of the NO Mass. Nevertheless, the NO Mass, by its very nature, is focused more on the community than on God, which is where the focus should be.

Father: but don’t you see? The demand IS so great that priests are needed to offer the Mass of All Time. There is a single Tridentine Mass each month in the upstate of SC for a growing community of faithful that desire such a Mass. If there were a daily Tridentine Mass (at a convenient time), you can be sure that there would be a sizable congregation. Further, if priests were to make the old Mass available regularly, there would be more and more adherents to it before long: that’s how it is with the traditional Mass.Again, there is a single Tridentine Mass in the upstate each month. Since you brought up the subject of Spanish Novus Ordo Masses, I’ll mention that there are 10 such Sunday Masses each week throughout the upstate. That’s 40 times as many Spanish Masses as Tridentine Masses. Yet the Holy Father has indicated that the faithful now have a right to the Tridentine Mass – and that priests must observe and uphold that right. In addition, the Spanish Mass caters to a specific segment of the population; the Traditional Latin Mass caters to ALL of the faithful.One final point, and I’m sorry if this will offend your sensibilities. People talk of a priest shortage, and I suppose we have that in this country. But I can guarantee that if the traditional Mass were made available as the Holy Father has asked, in 10-15 years the priest shortage would be no more, because the traditional Mass allows men to hear God’s calling like the Novus Ordo never will.

people are not leaving his parish in search of the TLM.I knew it! I’ve ceased to exist! I have achieved nirvana.That aside, the Hispanic population of SC is probably closer to 250k, the last I heard there are 30,000 residing in St. Mary’s parish alone. If 1000 attend Mass I’ll be shocked, for about a year I escaped the mind numbing English by hiding out at the Spanish Masses where I didn’t understand a word that was uttered. The church was always packed to overflowing, people were almost out to the street but that still couldn’t have been more than 600-650 people. If there are a quarter of a million Hispanic Catholics in SC they would outnumber the “Anglo” population of Catholics by almost 3 to 1… one might think therefore that Spanish language Masses would outnumber English Masses by the same ratio. One would be sorely mistaken, so apparently “need” isn’t an issue, or even a consideration.This isn’t a new problem either, we’ve had bilingual print advertising here for at least a decade and the Baptists have been poaching the Hispanic population for at least that long. Meanwhile “Ethnic Ministries” may finally be coming to grips with the possibility that there MAY be a few African-Americans in South Carolina.Not that it matters, but my “pastoral needs” can not be, and have not been, met through the New Rite. Nor am I a minority of one.

There are 3 legal trad Masses throughout the state of SC. One is about 40 minutes from me on the first Sunday of the month, another is about an hour and a half from me ALSO on the first Sunday of the month and the third is at least 4 hours away every Sunday.If your spirituality is conformed to the old rite, once a month might almost be worse than never… from a strictly pragmatic point of view.I really don’t know from edified. I don’t have a horse in that race but I’d put the Masses said at St. Mary’s up against any new rite Mass in the Country. The solemnity and reverence exhibited by the various ministers is unparalleled in my experience, the new rite doesn’t get any better than it is at St. Mary’s.

Another thing which needs to be acknowledged in all of this is the wishes of the vast majority of St Mary’s parishioners. I go to St Mary’s and everyone I speak to who goes there is delighted with the liturgy, but ask them if they want more Latin and Gregorian Chant.’No thanks’ is the reply.I suppose the purists would say, ‘They don’t know what’s good for them. We’ll impose it whether they like it or not…’While the majority don’t make the rules in the Catholic Church, it is right for their wishes to be considered when deciding what to do.The fact of the matter is, the numbers of people requesting the old Mass are very few and far between, and quite frankly, if they are not satisfied with the Mass at St Mary’s then I suspect reverent liturgy is not the real issue.

While the majority don’t make the rules in the Catholic Church, it is right for their wishes to be considered when deciding what to do.The majority wishes for the approval of contraception. For that matter the majority has already approved of it. But I think the real reason the argument fails is you’ll find the majority of people in any parish are “delighted” with whatever passes for liturgy.A lot of things can be done “reverently”, of course that’s not the issue. Dressing the new rite up in the trappings and ceremonies of the old only makes the fundamental differences more glaring (at least to me). There’s this video on youtube of the Red Army Chorus singing Sweet Home Alabama with the Leningrad Cowboys, it’s amusing after the initial “this is the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen” reaction passes. It also brings the mixing of the two “forms” of the Roman Rite to mind.Really now, just think about it, everyone here is talking about making the new ritual look as much like the old as possible without actually doing it.