Canonical Mission and State of Emergency - A Response to Mr. John Salza - Part A

 +

JMJ

 

In December 2021, One Peter Five posted a series of articles debating the justification for the SSPX's continued provision of the Sacraments to Catholics who request them.

The genesis for the series was John Salza's response to a podcast by Fr. Loop in which he put forth the following, first on his own blog and second in his 1P5 article:

<1.No, Christ did not send the bishops and priests of the SSPX. Rather, they have sent themselves >, and have thus “deceived” traditional Catholics. <2. Given that many doctrinal errors (e.g., on collegiality, sacramental intention, supplied jurisdiction, etc.) > and <3. schisms (Sedevacantism, Resistance, Avrille Dominicans) > have sprung from Archbishop Lefebvre <4. raises the question of how much better off the Church might have been had he obeyed Pope John Paul II.> (Original Article: True and False Pope)

Neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor any of his bishops and priests have produced a single miracle to justify their ministry without a canonical mission, even though they claim we are suffering perhaps the greatest crisis in Church history.[12] That is because Christ did not send the bishops and priests of the SSPX. Rather, they have sent themselves, and thus, in the words of Fr. Angles (SSPX), “have been deceiving good traditional Catholic faithful.” (1P5: Does the SSPX have an extraordinary mission?)

Breaking it down and replying to peripheral issues

Before I dive into the core issue of mission,  I want to breakdown the thesis and make some quick counter-points (numbers link to the references in red above).

1. This is part of the core topic that I will discuss below.
2. This is puzzling as the SSPX was very clear on how they accept the Second Vatican Council (Link: Doctrinal Preamble 1988 vs 2012).  Ultimately, after the doctrinal discussions Rome didn't declare the SSPX heretics or disclose doctrinal errors so this appears to be nothing more than Mr. Salza's unsupported personal opinion.  Also I find the claim concerning 'supplied jurisdiction' confusing.  This would be a canon law issue, not a doctrinal one.  
   
3. Regarding the 'schisms' of the SSPX.  
1. Sedevacantism emerged shortly after the end of the Council outside of the SSPX. Those who hold the thesis have no place in the SSPX.
2. The 'Resistance' and Avrille Dominicans' left or opposed (respectively) the SSPX due to the Bishop Fellay's steadfast adherence to the principles of Catholic Obedience. In other words being ready to obey a legitimate order from the Pope. In addition, I think it would be fair to include other congregations that 'split' from the SSPX - such as the FSSP and the other Ecclesia Dei congregations. I find it ironic that Mr. Salza tries to turn this into a bad thing.
   
3. Just like the real schisms where people refuse the authority of the Pope (Orthodox etc), these parties (resistance and Avrille) are, as Bishop Fellay pointed out, practically refusing the authority by not being willing to obey in the case of an order that meets the criteria for obedience.
4. The disobedience to Pope St. John Paul II is simply an inflection point in this crisis.  The original issue was with Pope St. Paul VI (Link: Can Obedience Oblige us to Disobey?). As to the question: "How much better off the Church might have been had he obeyed Pope John Paul II?"  I propose the following answers that are the reality as opposed to a hypothetical: 
1. First we have the factual knowledge that the Tridentine Mass was never abrogated and that the priests who were persecuted over the decades for saying that Mass were perfectly within their rights.  This admission and vindication came about because of the SSPX.
   
2. Summorum Pontificum also came about because of the SSPX's pre-requisites (Link: Pre-Conditions)
3. Looking further back, the 1982 Indult came about because of the actions of the SSPX.
4. Since the Council and alleged abrogation of the Tridentine Mass, millions of Catholics had and have access to the Mass and Sacraments that, otherwise, would have become extinct.
5. Given the compromises the have been required of the FSSP et al and now the reality of Traditiones Custodes - it beggars the imagination that Mr. Salza actually asks the questions given that the situation materially has been reverted back to that of the 70's.

Mission - The Core Issue

Mr. John Salza and, I assume, Mr. Siscoe no longer seek the sacraments from the SSPX. As a consequence, Mr. Salza appears to have made it his mission to demonstrate the validity of his decision and dissuade all others from seeking the Sacraments from the SSPX.  His thesis seems to be that a priest or bishop needs to have an ordinary mission provided ultimately by the Pope, or barring this, an extraordinary mission directly from God. Otherwise, their work is not just illicit, but sinful and sacrilegious to attend. 

It appears that for Mr. Salza, there is no in-between position possible. This extreme positioning strikes me as being very similar to that of the Sedevacantists.  Only, the Sedevacantist position is that if Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ, then he is our rule of faith and must be obeyed and if he isn't our rule of faith then he can't be the Vicar of Christ.  Both of these extreme ways leave very little room for a realistic appraisal and response to a situation. 

My first conclusion is that much of what Mr. Salza writes is unnecessary because the SSPX does not claim an extraordinary mission as he defines it and ascribes to the SSPX. So a few dozen or even 800 miracles are not necessary in order for a priest of the SSPX to know what to do in the present situation. Specifically the canonically irregular situation of the SSPX.

First a little history, the SSPX was canonically erected in 1970 in the Diocese of Lausanne, was authorized by Rome to incardinate its priests on its own and existed in this canonically regular state for a number of years. Note that while Mr. Salza may challenge the incardination statements made by Archbishop Lefebvre, I have found no reasons to doubt the word of Archbishop Lefebvre. The 1974 declaration (link) by Archbishop Lefebvre precipitated an investigation and the Vatican ordered the new bishop of Lausanne to suppress the SSPX, but that wasn't possible because the SSPX had received a commendation from the Vatican elevating the SSPX to a new status.  When the Vatican moved to suppress the SSPX a second time, the SSPX appealed but the Secretary of State intervened circumventing the canonical process.  For that reason, from the perspective of the SSPX, they are still waiting for the appeal to be heard, until that point all punishments are suspended. Obviously, from Rome's perspective the SSPX is suppressed and its original canonical structure has been deprecated. (Link: A Short History of the SSPX).

What was the reason for all the efforts to suppress a fledgling congregation? Were they a hotbed for Modernist thoughts?  How about liturgical experimentation so popular at the time? Were they plotting with communists to undermine civil authority? The answer to all these questions is no. Seminaries that were indulging in the 'New Springtime' continued unchecked.  It was what the SSPX wouldn't do that was the root of the problem.  They wouldn't say the New Mass and accept the Second Vatican Council without reservation. 

This should sound familiar as these are the guiding principles of Traditiones Custodes.

The SSPX is persecuted because of its adherence to what the Catholic Church taught authoritatively before the Second Vatican Council. It does not reject these as did the Protestant "Reformers". Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated bishops to supply priests and sacraments, not to make a National Church independent from the See of Peter, as did the consecration of bishops by the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (Pius XII: AD APOSTOLORUM PRINCIPIS).  What Mr. Salza cites as comparisons should be contrasts.

The Tridentine Mass liturgically expresses the pre-conciliar Teaching and the pre-conciliar Faith. The Catholic Faith is why Traditional Catholics are persecuted by their own leaders, apparently even the Pope.  The danger to the Faith is why Catholics have turned to the SSPX for the sacraments. 

Based on the latest documents from the Vatican, the Second Vatican Council is a dividing line between what was and what is the Catholic Faith. Pope Benedict XVI courageously tried to reconcile the two of them. Pope Francis does not and makes anew the persecution to the marginalized Traditional Catholics.

Mr. Salza asserts that there is a crisis in the Catholic Church.  However, I don't think he sees it with the same eyes as our grandparents and parents did in the 70s and as many of us lived in the 80s and 90s.  He definitely does not see it as Archbishop Lefebvre did throughout the Council and its aftermath. 

Each Catholic, irregardless of their state has a duty to fulfill and the greater the responsibility the greater the duty.  Bishops, Priests, Religious, and the Faithful all have a common duty to work for their salvation and that of others.  Archbishop Lefebvre did not 'send himself', he was called.  First by seminarians and then by faithful who were bearing the brunt of the crisis. He obtained an ordinary mission and when confronted with superiors who required a compromise, he had to determine whether or not the command given was legitimate or if the salvation of souls was truly at stake (Link: The Mark of a Faithful Catholic: True Obedience).  

The salvation of souls "must always be the supreme law in the Church (Canon 1752). Which leads us to perhaps the most important question, does this crisis of the Catholic Church put the salvation of souls at risk? In the face of the acts of the pontificate of Pope Francis, I think it is even easier to answer in the affirmative in the 21st century than it was in the 20th.

So what alternative does Mr. Salza leave the Catholics who currently attend the SSPX chapels?  Are they to go back to their parishes and try, for example, to convince their pastor to actually use the words of absolution? Are they to go to the bishop and report the continual streams of heresies being uttered by their pastor and see nothing change?  Should they become 'home aloner' Catholics as even the Ukrainian rites are well on the way to doctrinal ambiguity with the 2005 change in their creed.

Canon law cannot be a death sentence for Catholics trying to work out their salvation during this crisis. While Mr. Salza seems to believe that the SSPX's canonical irregularity is a barrier to receiving the sacraments from them, the Church authorities have spoken to the contrary.  Fr. Z has likewise opined on Mr. Salza's thesis. Given Fr. Z's insights based on his experience in the midst of Ecclesia Dei (link) I hold his opinion higher that of Mr. Salza.  He can maintain his opinion and argue that they made mistakes, but it remains just his opinion.

There is a crisis in the Catholic Church and to paraphrase St. Jerome, "in any case, the Second Vatican Council was a sudden defeat of orthodoxy, and Archbishop Lefebvre could say: "The Catholic Church groaned in astonishment to find itself Modernist" (Link: Catholic Encyclopedia). 

What is evident is that the authorities in Rome, who welcome all manner of people, still isn't ready to accept Traditional Catholics as we are, Catholic.

 P^3

Relevant Documents

• SSPX Podcast
•  Crisis Series #44: How Can the SSPX Justify What it Does?
• Transcript (See
  
• 1P5 Articles
• One Peter Five: The SSPX Debate - Collection of Articles 
  
• Flanders Dec 3, 2021: Introduction The SSPX Debate 
  
• Salza Dec 6, 2021: Does the SSPX Have an Extraordinary Mission? 
• Original Article: Does the SSPX Have an Extraordinary Mission?
  
• Xavier Dec6, 2021: In Praise of Archbishop Lefebvre and Defense of the SSPX
• May December 15, 2021: Defense of the SSPX - A Thomistic Approach
  
• Kwasniewski Dec 17, 2021: True Obedience: A Key Consideration for Our Time
• Salza Dec 20, 2021: The SSPX is Transgressing Divine Law - Reply to Xavier
• Bocca Dec 20, 2021: Operational Survival: The Case for the SSPX
• Hall Dec 21, 2021: The Extraordinary Mission of the SSPX is Saving Souls
  
• Fr. Michael Dec 22, 2021: A Third Way in the SSPX Debate: A Priest Weighs In
• Salza Jan 17, 2022: Failed Defense - Reply to Bocca
• McCall Jan 17, 2022: Ordinary Mission of SSPX - Reply to Salza
  

Reference

https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/two-contradictory-documents-secretary-20604

https://sspx.ca/en/what-canonical-status-sspx

https://wdtprs.com/2021/12/ask-father-not-again-does-attending-an-sspx-mass-fulfill-ones-sunday-obligation/

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/11/una-voce-international-federation.html

https://hcs.fsspx.org/en/what-canonical-status-sspx

https://stas.org/en/legal-existence-sspx

https://sspx.org/en/supplied-jurisdiction-traditional-priests

http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q9_supplied_jurisdiction.htm

https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib7-cann1732-1752_en.html 

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."

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."

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

http://web.archive.org/web/20030202034019/http://www.unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm

https://salbert.tripod.com/SSPXMasses.htm