New PCED Response says SSPX Mass Does not fulfill the Obligation.
#11
This doesn't surprise me, but I am not sure this is SSPX but an independent affiliated with them. Kind of hard to tell.
Reply
#12
You can take this letter in 15 different ways. Kind of like VII!  :P
Reply
#13
I've sensed for a long time that many Cardinal's, Bishop's and Priest's have lost the faith and are working for their own secular ideas (Homosexuality, feminism, socialism, etc etc etc )
Reply
#14
This does not refer to the SSPX per se, its actually some group called "Friends of the SSPX" so I am a bit confused about it.
Reply
#15
(05-31-2012, 01:09 PM)Unum Sint Wrote: This does not refer to the SSPX per se, its actually some group called "Friends of the SSPX" so I am a bit confused about it.

That's exactly what iwas thinking too


Reply
#16
I would just ignore it and keep going to the SSPX on Sunday. No Harm in it, they're Catholic, this letter is highly ambiguous and non-binding, so I would ignore it.
Reply
#17
(05-31-2012, 09:27 AM)Old Salt Wrote: This contradicts current Canon Law:

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05...-sspx.html

Its also worth pointing out that eclessia dei doesn't have the competence to issue authentic interpretations of canon law, that competence belongs exclusively to the pontifical council for the interpretation of legislative texts, the current successor to the code commission set up to issue authentic interpretations of the 1917 code. What this means is that the eclessia dei response isn't worth the paper its written on and people should stop wasting their time writing to it and instead write to the competent commission, namely the pontifical council for the interpretation of legislative texts.
Reply
#18
From Rorate Caeli:

Quote: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 in 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 friendly to the SSPX but 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 to the SSPX and led to this different appraisal by the Commission.
Reply
#19
I have numerous volumes here containing decisions of the Congregation of Rites over decades.  They tend not to directly contradict eachother.
Reply
#20
My hunch is that this is one more example of somebody trying to make trouble just as we have a chance for the healing of some great wounds.  Make no mistake, there are people on both sides who do not want a regularization.  Makes me think of Star Trek VI-- Starfleet and Klingons in collusion.  (Not that that is necessarily what we have here.)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)