+
JMJ
This is one gap that seems to pop up periodically ... for example:
Recently, Crisis Magazine published an article titled “A Catholic’s Dubia for the SSPX,” in which the author, Daniel Waldow, asked a number of questions regarding the status of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) as well as its views on some questions of concern in the postconciliar Church. The answers below were written by an SSPX priest and have been approved for publication by his superiors.
So the SSPX has published a response to the Dubia on 1P5. You can read it here: 1P5 SSPX Responsa Ad Dubia (link)
In addition, also on 1P5, a short article by Dr. Kwasniewski has been published that contains a copy of the SSPX Oath of Fidelity (link).
For information, chronicle and archival purposes I have attached the text below with some comments.
P^3
Declaration of Fidelity to the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X
I, the undersigned (N.),
Recognize (N.) as pope of the Holy Catholic Church. That is why I am prepared to pray for him publicly as Sovereign Pontiff.
[Tradicat: This counters the Sedevacantists that still pop up in the SSPX periodically - for example the now Thuc Line Bishop Roy.]
I refuse to follow him when he departs from Catholic Tradition, especially in matters of religious freedom and ecumenism, as well as in reforms that are harmful to the Church.
[Tradicat: This comes back to the limits of obedience that I have discussed here (link). ]
I admit that not all Masses celebrated according to the new rite are invalid. However, in view of the poor translations of the Novus Ordo Missæ [Tradicat: NOM], its ambiguity, which favors its interpretation in a Protestant sense, and the plurality of the ways in which it is celebrated, I recognize that the danger of invalidity is very great.
[Tradicat: This reminds me of a discussion with a recently ordained FSSP priest who thought that the SSPX believed and myself by extension that the NOM was invalid. I quickly disabused him of that believe and bent his mind by stating my belief that a faithful modern Catholic attending the NOM probably obtains more graces compared with a Trad due to the deficiencies in the NOM and the way it is celebrated. Modern Catholics have a much harder time to practice the faith compared with Trads. It led to a good hour+ discussion.]
I affirm that the new rite of the Mass does not actually formulate any heresy expressly, but that it “departs impressively, on the whole as well as in detail, from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass,” and that for this reason this new rite is in itself evil.
[Tradicat: Here Bishop Fellay once explained that evil is the absence of (IIRC) and it is obvious to many that problem with this NOM is not what is officially 'says' but what it leaves 'unsaid' in both form and actions.
Therefore, I will never celebrate Holy Mass according to this new rite, even under threat of ecclesiastical penalties; nor will I ever positively advise anyone to actively participate in such a Mass.
[Tradicat: I wonder if the FSSP has any policy or document that makes the same statement?]
Finally, I accept as legitimate the liturgical reform of John XXIII. I therefore receive all of its liturgical books as Catholic: the Missal, Breviary, etc., and I commit myself to use them exclusively, according to their calendar and rubrics, especially for the celebration of the Mass and for the common recitation of the breviary.
[Tradicat: I know that some Trads favour the pre-John XXIII liturgy. The principle I remember hearing back in the 80's for the above decision is that 'one goes to the point that things went off the rails and hold there until the crisis is over.' ]
In so doing, I wish to manifest the obedience that binds me to my superiors, as well as that which binds me to the Sovereign Pontiff in all his legitimate acts.
[Tradicat: So ... this brings us back to binding to the Pope and all his legitimate acts. Of which they were few and far between in the Pontificate of Pope Francis I.]
Comments
Post a Comment