Patrons of Schismatic Groups do not fulfill their Sunday and Holy Day Obligations with these Groups.

This came to our attention in an email to a man in England, in which Michael Davies admits, albeit obliquely, that those who patronize the SSPX do not fulfill their obligations with this schismatic group.  In a question Mr. Davies poses to this man (in red) he's asking how could a person fulfill his obligations if the group is in schism.  He asks the question as if the statements of Msgr. Perl, in the communications below, are somehow as justification of his belief that the SSPX is not schism.

The other side of the coin here is that if the SSPX is in schism, then a person CANNOT fulfill his obligation through the SSPX - and that is the point brought out by Mr. Davies asking the question.  And, of course, the Church has so declared the Society to be in schism and, therefore, patrons of the SSPX besides committing a sin by supporting the schism of the SSPX also commit a sin in that they do not fulfill their obligation.

Thank you Mr. Davies for verifying what we've been telling people for years now.

How does Mr. Davies arrive at the conclusion that the Holy See says you can fulfill your obligation with the SSPX?  Simple.  He bases it on a private letter from Msgr. Perl to an unknown person where under CERTAIN SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES a person could fulfill his obligation.  Unfortunately, we do not have the contents of the early communications between Msgr. Perl and the person who wrote to Rome to clarify some certain point.  But it is clear from Msgr. Perl's letter that what he says is NOT a blanket generalization concerning the fulfillment of obligation through the SSPX.  And, in fact, in the Monsignor's letter he says as much.

The person in the messages below who is anonymous for this webpage is not the person who originally wrote to Msgr. Perl.  But here are the pertinent messages between him and Mr. Davies.

----- Original Message -----
From: "XXXXX XXXXXX" <XXXXXX@me.also.co.uk>
To: grossklas@earthlink.net
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 2:40 AM
Subject: SSPX

Dear Bill,

I sent a copy of John Beaumont's letter to Michael Davies.  Michael was an early member of The Latin Mass Society and until recently was vice-president.  He resigned over the recent row over the SSPX which I described to you.  He has sent me the following message. Since I do not have John Beaumont's email address, you might like to pass it on.  I do not know the answer to his (rhetorical) question !

Regards
XXXXX
XXXXX X. XXXXXXX
XXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX, Caldecote, Baldock,
XXXXXXXXX SG7 5LE, England
Tel: +44 (0) XXXX XXXXX
Fax: +44 (0) XXXX XXXXXX
Website http://www.XXXXXXXX.co.uk

---------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Michael Davies" <XXXXXXXX@ntlworld.com>
To: <XXXXXXXX@me.also.co.uk>
Subject: Re: SSPX/Catholic Herald
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:20:41 -0800

DEAR XXXXX,

I MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR SENDING ME THE BEAUMONT ARTICLE.  I HAVE CLASHED WITH HIM BEFORE AND HE DOES NOT HAVE THE REMOTEST IDEA OF WHAT CONSTITUTES SCHISM.  IF I CAN FIND A FEW MINUTES I WILL WRITE A RESPONSE.  IF YOU HAVE LOOKED AT WWW.UNAVOCE.ORG YOU WILL SEE THAT THE HOLY SEE ACCEPTS THAT ASSISTING AT SSPX MASSES FULFILS (sic) ONE'S SUNDAY OBLIGATION.  COULD THIS BE DONE BY ASSISTING AT A SCHISMATIC MASS?

MICHAEL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
While Mr. Davies is using this letter from Msgr. Perl as an argument that the SSPX in not in schism, he is saying that one cannot fulfill his obligation with a schismatic group.  And we agree with this part of his statement.  Unfortunately for Mr. Davies, his belief about the status of the Society is 180 degrees out of sync with the Church's.

Here is the address for the letter of Msgr. Perl on the Una Voce site: http://www.unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm

And here is the text of that page with my comments in blue -- Bill.

Letter by Msgr. Camille Perl Regarding Society of St. Pius X Masses

Una Voce America has received a communication from the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission, concerning an article which appeared in The Remnant newspaper and various websites.  At the request of the Commission, we are publishing it below.

Pontificia Commissio "Ecclesia Dei" January 18, 2003

Greetings in the Hearts of Jesus & Mary!  There have been several inquiries about our letter of 27 September 2002.  In order to clarify things, Msgr. Perl has made the following response.

Oremus pro invicem.

In cordibus Jesu et Mariæ,
Msgr. Arthur B. Calkins

Msgr. Camille Perl's response:

Unfortunately, as you will understand, we have no way of controlling what is done with our letters by their recipients.  Our letter of 27 September 2002, which was evidently cited in The Remnant and on various websites, was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us.  What was presented in the public forum is an abbreviated version of that letter which omits much of our pastoral counsel.  Since a truncated form of this letter has now become public, we judge it appropriate to present the larger context of our response.

In a previous letter to the same correspondent we had already indicated the canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X which we will summarize briefly here.

1.) The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.

2.) Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church.

Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was "Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass" and our response was:

"1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X."

(Ed. Note: this last comment applies to whatever specific circumstances this person wrote to Rome about - as Msgr. Perl said above.  It cannot be construed that Msgr. Perl is saying that anyone can fulfill his obligation through the SSPX for that is taking the comment out of context of the original communications which it appears Mr. Davies has done.)

His second question was "Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass" and we responded stating:

"2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why.  If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. 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."

(Ed. Note: Again, this comment (2) and the one below (3), have to be put in the context of the original messages which are not available to us.  So we do not know why Msgr. Perl has made the statements which he did and, again, this cannot be taken as a blanket endorsement of attendance at Society Masses nor of any kind of support for the SSPX.  The Church has warned the faithful that they cannot support the schism of the SSPX.  This was specifically stated by the Holy Father in his motu proprio Ecclesia Dei (point 5C) when he said,

"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 fulfill 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.

It is clear that those who patronize the Society stand to incur the penalty of excommunication - so says the supreme interpreter of Church law, an appeal from whose authority is not possible.)

His third question was: "Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection a Pius X Mass" to which we responded:

"3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified."

Further, the correspondent took the Commission to task for not doing its job properly and we responded thus:

"This Pontifical Commission does not have the authority to coerce Bishops to provide for the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. Nonetheless, we are frequently in contact with Bishops and do all that we can to see that this provision is made. However, this provision also depends on the number of people who desire the 'traditional' Mass, their motives and the availability of priests who can celebrate it.

"You also state in your letter that the Holy Father has given you a 'right' to the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal.  This is not correct.  It is true that he has asked his brother Bishops to be generous in providing for the celebration of this Mass, but he has not stated that it is a 'right'.  Presently it constitutes an exception to the Church's law and may be granted when the local Bishop judges it to be a valid pastoral service and when he has the priests who are available to celebrate it.   Every Catholic has a right to the sacraments (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 843), but he does not have a right to them according to the rite of his choice."

We hope that this puts in a clearer light the letter about which you asked us.

With prayerful best wishes for this New Year of Our Lord 2003, I remain

Sincerely yours in Christ,
Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl Secretary

To say that the Church says you can fulfill your obligation with this schismatic sect is to present a contradiction.  In order for it to be understood without contradiction, this matter must be interpreted in the context of a private communication relating to certain specific circumstances only - not generalizations.   So this matter is still as it was before and as it will remain until the SSPX submits to Church authority and is reconciled to the Church as was the Campos, Brazil group in 2002.