SSPX Masses and the Sunday
Obligation
John Salza
Responds to Fr. Chad Ripperger and Jimmy Akin
In the span of just a few days, two well-known Catholics
publicly gave what I maintain are erroneous conclusions regarding whether or
not SSPX Masses fulfill the Sunday obligation. On September 18, 2024, in an interview with
Gene Zannetti, Fr. Chad Ripperger stated that SSPX Masses fulfill the
obligation. And on September 21, 2024, in an article by Daniel Payne for
Catholic News Agency (about the Carmelite nuns who defected to the SSPX), Jimmy
Akin of Catholic Answers is also quoted as suggesting that SSPX Masses fulfill
the obligation (because he says Catholics can attend their Masses and receive
Holy Communion).
As I will demonstrate in this article, both statements fall short of a proper understanding of canon law, which lead to the erroneous conclusion. Note that I already addressed this issue at length in my November 2021 article “Do SSPX Masses Fulfill the Sunday Obligation?” (this previous article also analyzes all the negative judgments by the Holy See regarding SSPX Mass attendance). However, because of the gravity of the issue concerning many souls, and the influence these two gentlemen have in Catholic circles, along with new errors that were made in their presentations, I believe another reply is warranted.
An Incorrect Understanding of Canon 1248
A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.[1]
Based on their recent
statements (cited below), Mr. Akin and Fr. Ripperger have incorrectly
interpreted the term “Catholic rite” in canon 1248 to simply mean a valid
Catholic “missal” (or “liturgical rite” or “ritual”). To prove
that point, in the interview cited above, Fr. Ripperger referred to canon law
(without actually citing the relevant canon) and stated “they changed canon law
to where you fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Catholic
ritual said by a Catholic priest”[2] (emphasis added).
Ripperger then applied his understanding of canon law to SSPX Masses, and said
Catholics can fulfill their obligation at such Masses: “Technically speaking,
according to canon law, yes you can [fulfill the obligation].”[3] In
the CNA article, Mr. Akin is quoted as similarly stating: “Canon Law stipulates that Catholics ‘can
participate in the Eucharistic sacrifice and receive holy Communion in
any Catholic rite.’ Since SSPX is using the approved 1962 rite of
the Mass, ‘the faithful can attend it and receive holy Communion’”[4]
(emphases added).
In other words, Fr. Ripperger and Mr. Akin have concluded that
one fulfills the Sunday obligation by assisting at a Mass which uses an
approved Missal (or, in their words, “ritual” or liturgical “rite”), without
regard to whether the church in which the Mass is celebrated is a
Catholic church (e.g., celebrated in a church
governed by a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction, and thus in hierarchical
communion with the Pope and College of Bishops, as part of the universal Church).
Because the SSPX celebrates the Church-approved 1962 Missal (the Extraordinary
Form of the Roman rite of the Latin Church), Ripperger and Akin conclude that
SSPX attendees are celebrating “in a Catholic rite,” and therefore, meet the
ecclesiastical precept of canon 1248.
However, this is not (and cannot be) the correct interpretation of canon 1248, because it would mean that Catholics could also fulfill their Sunday obligation at a Sedevacantist Mass (whose priests use the 1962 Missal), or an Old Catholic Mass (whose priests use both the 1962 and 1969 Missals and mention Pope Francis in the canon). It would even mean that Catholics could satisfy the obligation at a Mass celebrated by one who, though validly ordained, established his own “church” in his mother’s basement (without ecclesiastical approval, of course), so long as he used an approved Missal. In all of these cases, the Masses offered by these schismatic priests do not satisfy the obligation, because they are not offered in a Catholic church, that is, in a local particular church (e.g., a diocese governed by a bishop in union with the Pope) which is part of the universal Church.[5]
Enter Canon 1246 §1
This is not my opinion, but rather a requirement of the faith itself, as provided in both the Catechism of the Catholic Church (no. 2177) and her canon law. Canon 1246 §1 says:
The Lord’s Day, on which the paschal mystery is celebrated, is by apostolic tradition to be observed in the universal Church (in universa Ecclesia) as the primary holyday of obligation. In the same way the following holydays are to be observed: the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Epiphany, the Ascension of Christ, the feast of the Body and Blood of Christ, the feast of Mary the Mother of God, her Immaculate Conception, her Assumption, the feast of St Joseph, the feast of the Apostles SS Peter and Paul, and the feast of All Saints.[6]
According to canon 1246 and the Catechism of the Catholic
Church, it is a matter of divine revelation (“apostolic tradition” / “ex
apostolica traditione”) that Sundays and Holy Days must be observed “in
the universal Church” in order to satisfy the “holyday of obligation.” This is
because Christ, at the very beginning, directly established the universal
Church through the Papacy and College of Bishops (in St. Peter and the
Apostles), which existed prior to the establishment of the particular (territorial)
churches in the Apostolic and post-Apostolic periods. Hence, the Mass and
sacraments were first celebrated in the universal Church.
Today, after having “put down her roots in a variety of
cultural, social, and human terrains,”[7]
the universal Church now also consists of the local Church of
Rome, to which the Primacy is attached, and local particular churches (i.e.,
diocese or eparchies) throughout the world in union with it. This universal Church has 24 Churches sui iuris
and six Rites throughout the world. The
six Rites are: in the East, the Alexandrian, Armenian, Byzantine,[8]
Eastern Syrian and Western Syrian[9];
and, in the West, the Latin Rite.[10]
The 24 Churches sui iuris are self-governing churches
established by the supreme authority of the universal Church (the Pope) and are
part of the universal Church. They are also known as autonomous particular
churches, because they have distinct theological, liturgical, spiritual and
canonical traditions (the largest church sui iuris is the Latin church,
which is the only such church in the West; the 23 other churches sui iuris
exist in the East). Finally, the 24 churches sui iuris are made up of
local particular churches throughout the world, each of which is headed by a
bishop and, as noted above, called a diocese in the Latin Church and an eparchy
in the Eastern Churches (in a diocese, there are local parish churches headed
by a pastor who is appointed by the bishop).
The New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, compiled by the leading canonists in North America and Europe, confirms the foregoing conclusions, thereby directly contradicting the position of Ripperger and Akin. The commentary explicitly provides that a “Catholic rite” in canon 1248 does not merely refer to a valid Missal, but to a Mass celebrated in a “Catholic church sui iuris”:
The Mass must be celebrated in a Catholic rite, i.e., in the liturgical rite of any Catholic church sui iuris, but not in a church which is not in full communion with the Catholic Church, although using a Catholic liturgical rite.[11]
What does this all mean? It means that in order for a Mass to satisfy the Sunday obligation, it must not only be celebrated according to an approved Missal, but also offered “in the universal Church,” that is, in union with the Pope and College of Bishops, in one of the 24 Churches sui iuris, which includes the local particular churches (e.g., dioceses) and their respective parish churches throughout the world.
The SSPX is not a Catholic Church or Equivalent
The obvious problem with Fr. Ripperger and Mr. Akin’s conclusion
is that SSPX Masses are not “observed in the universal Church,” that is, in one
of the 24 Catholic churches sui iuris, within a particular church (a
diocese) headed by a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction (nor does the SSPX claim
that to be the case). Hence, the SSPX does not offer Mass in a “Catholic rite”
or “in the universal Church” in order to qualify for satisfying the Sunday
obligation. As Fr. John Lessard-Thibodeau explained in his recent canonical
study of the SSPX, “the
erection of a Church sui iuris is an executive act of the Holy Father.
It does not happen as a mere matter of the passage of time, self-declaration or
by any means ipso facto or ipso iure.”[12] As
canon 373 provides: “It is within the competence of the supreme authority
alone to establish particular Churches; once they are lawfully established, the
law itself gives them juridical personality.”
Fr.
Lessard-Thibodeaux goes on to state the obvious, which the SSPX also concedes:
“There is no evidence that the SSPX has been erected, defined or even described
by competent authority as a Church sui iuris by competent authority
(CCEO c. 27). He further says: “Similarly, there is no evidence that the SSPX
has been erected by competent authority (c. 373) or defined as a Particular
Church in any form recognized by the Holy See (c. 368). Such erection or
recognition does not appear plausible under current ecclesiastical law.”[13]
Therefore, Masses offered by the SSPX are not “celebrated in a Catholic rite,
i.e., in the liturgical rite of any Catholic church sui iuris.”
The SSPX is also
not part of the universal Church because it was lawfully suppressed by Pope
Paul VI in 1975, at which time it was legally extinguished (lost its “juridic
personality” according to canon law).[14]
In other words, upon its suppression, the SSPX “disappeared” off the map of the
Latin Rite.[15]
This is another reason why SSPX Masses
are not “observed in the universal Church,” because the SSPX is not recognized
as part of the Latin church sui iuris. This is why Pope Benedict XVI in
2009 stated that “the Society has no
canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been
freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry
in the Church.”[16] This is
also why Cardinal Burke stated: “At the present moment, they [the SSPX] are not
part of the one Roman Catholic Church throughout the world.”[17]
Accordingly, the SSPX is not a church “in full communion with the Catholic
Church,” and thus their Masses do not fulfill the obligation.
In summary, Canon 1246 proves that even if the word “rite” in canon 1248 would refer exclusively to an approved liturgical Missal or ritual as Mr. Akin and Fr. Ripperger maintain (but which is not the case), such Mass must still be observed “in the universal Church” in order to satisfy the Sunday and holydays obligation, and SSPX Masses are not so observed. The SSPX is not part of the Roman Catholic Church, and their Masses are not offered “in the universal Church,” because they are not offered in Catholic churches governed by bishops with title and ordinary jurisdiction, who are united to their head, the Pope. Therefore, SSPX Masses do not satisfy the obligation.
Other Issues in the Recent Statements
In addition to their faulty interpretation of canon 1248, Fr.
Ripperger and Mr. Akin made some other misleading statements in their recent
interviews regarding the SSPX and the Sunday obligation. As noted above, Fr.
Ripperger stated that the Church “changed canon law to where you
fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Catholic ritual said by a
Catholic priest,” as if the Church previously prohibited one from attending
Mass at non-Catholic sects on Sunday, but now allows it! This, of course, is
false. Canon law did not change in regard to the need to observe Mass “in the
universal Church” and a “Catholic rite” as properly understood.
In the 1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 1249 (the predecessor to
the current canon 1248) also required Mass to be “celebrated in a Catholic
rite” to fulfill the obligation.[18]
In fact, the canon identified specific loci for such celebrations that
were part of the universal Church (through their juridic unity with local
particular churches) such as parish churches, public or semi-public oratories
and certain private cemeteries, but not in other private oratories without permission
of the Holy See. Hence, there was no change between the 1917 and 1983 Codes in regard
to the requirement to assist at Mass “in the universal Church” to satisfy the
obligation.[19]
Fr. Ripperger’s assertion that all one needs is a “Catholic
ritual” and a “Catholic priest” also begs the question of what he means by
“Catholic priest.” Who, according to Fr. Ripperger, is a legitimate Catholic
minister? Canon 265 helps answer that question by stating that “every cleric must
be incardinated in a particular church, or in a personal Prelature, or an
institute of consecrated life or a society which has this faculty” (that is,
under a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction; sound familiar?), and that
“acephalous or ‘wandering’ clergy are in no way to be allowed.” That means legitimate
Catholic ministers would certainly not include the acephalous priests of the
SSPX, SSPX-Resistance, Sedevacantists, Old Catholics and other independent,
“wandering” clergy, because they are not incardinated and thus “in no way
allowed,” even though they might use an approved “Catholic ritual” (Ripperger)
or “the approved 1962 rite of Mass” (Akin).
If Fr. Ripperger
would agree that the validly ordained Sedevacantist or Old Catholic priests of
today are not legitimate Catholic ministers, even though they use approved
Missals, then why would he view the SSPX clergy differently? After all, these
groups all suffer from the same ecclesiological defects (e.g., their
organizations are not part of the Roman Catholic Church; they are separated
from her divine government; their bishops have no title or ordinary
jurisdiction; their priests are illicitly ordained and not incardinated, etc.)
That Pope Benedict
XVI lifted the declared censure of excommunication on the SSPX bishops for the
sole purpose of bringing them into the Church (which the SSPX ultimately
refused to do) does not change these facts and make SSPX clergy legitimate Catholic
ministers (Pope Paul VI also lifted the declared excommunications on the
Orthodox clergy, but the SSPX would be the first to note that the Orthodox clergy
are non-Catholic ministers who remain in schism).
That Pope Francis
granted SSPX clergy the faculty to hear confessions and, conditionally, witness
marriages (since these sacraments were theretofore invalid for 40 years), also
does not change the facts; the Pope has the authority to grant such faculties
to non-Catholic ministers (e.g., the sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction
are valid in certain separated eastern Churches, which are administered by
schismatic priests and bishops, because the Pope has not withdrawn their
jurisdiction). It would be interesting to understand how Fr. Ripperger actually
defines a “Catholic priest.”
After claiming that a Catholic can receive Holy Communion and
presumably satisfy their Sunday obligation at an SSPX Mass (both of which are
false), Mr. Akin also added: “The
fact it [the SSPX Mass] is being celebrated in a canonically irregular
situation does not change this.” Akin then pointed out that “every time a
priest commits a liturgical abuse, it creates a canonically irregular
situation,” but that the Church “does not want the laity to have to judge which
canonically irregular situations involve ‘too much’ of a departure from the
law.” Thus, the faithful’s “right to attend and receive holy Communion in any
Catholic rite is protected.”
Mr. Akin’s argument is a straw man, because the
liceity of the Mass or the canonical status of the minister is not relevant to
whether the Mass satisfies the Sunday obligation under canon 1248. What matters
is whether the Mass is observed in the universal Church, through a local
particular church governed by a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction, and hence in
union with the Pope. It is true that Catholics are not obligated to know the
canonical status of a priest (is he under a censure?) or assess the degree of
liturgical deviations to determine if they render the Mass illicit (even though
Archbishop Lefebvre would judge the intentions of “Novus Ordo” priests in
concluding their Masses were invalid). But a Catholic is obligated to
know whether the church he is attending is in union with his local bishop –
this indeed is of apostolic tradition. The early Church Fathers, such as St.
Ignatius of Antioch, emphasized this obligation from the very beginning – “it
is not lawful without the bishop.”
We thus see that the purpose of canon 1248 is to affirm that
a Latin Rite Catholic may fulfill his Sunday obligation in the universal Church
by also assisting at a Mass offered in any one of the 23 Eastern churches sui
iuris, which are all part of the universal Church, but not at a chapel
which is not full communion with
the Catholic Church (not even a separated Eastern Church), even if it uses
an approved Catholic liturgical rite (of course, there would be little need
for a law regulating where Catholics could attend Mass to satisfy the
obligation if they could assist at Masses offered by any priest in any
setting who used a valid Missal). To reiterate, the
ability to legally satisfy the Sunday obligation is tied to the Church in which
the Mass is celebrated, and not merely to the validity of the minister’s
ordination or the Missal he uses. Those who
have used canon 1248 to conclude that SSPX Masses fulfill the Sunday obligation
have not understood this important distinction.
CNA also quotes Akin as referring to canon 923 in his defense
of assisting at SSPX Masses.[20]
Canon 923 says “Christ’s
faithful may participate in the Eucharistic Sacrifice and receive Holy
Communion in any Catholic rite, without prejudice to the provisions of Canon
844.” What are the problems with Mr. Akin’s reference? First, canon 923 has
nothing to do with the Sunday obligation (the relevant canons on the obligation
are 1246 - 1248). Thus, if Mr. Akin is using canon 923 to argue SSPX Masses
fulfill the obligation, he would be wrong in doing so (although I cannot
determine if that is his argument).
Second, and more
importantly, canon 923 uses the term “Catholic rite” in the exact same way as
canon 1248. The New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law explains: “The
reference to ‘any Catholic rite’ [in canon 923] means any Catholic Church sui
iuris.”[21]
The Commentary also notes that canon 866 of the 1917 Code was the predecessor
to canon 923, and its use of “rite” clearly refers to one of the six Rites of
the universal Church. This is because while the canon allows Catholics to
receive the Eucharist “in whatever rite it is confected,” it also urges
Catholics “to satisfy their Easter communion in their own rite” (866 §2), which
obviously means, for Catholics in the West, in the Latin Rite (and not a
particular Missal).
The Commentary
also states: “Now, there are no qualifications concerning the participation and
reception of the Eucharist in other Catholic churches sui iuris.
However, the faithful may not receive the Eucharist of a church or
ecclesiastical community which is not in full communion with the Catholic
Church, except for the case mentioned in canon 844 §2.”[22] As
already demonstrated, the SSPX is not a church or ecclesiastical community in
full communion with the Catholic Church, nor does it qualify for the exception
in canon 844 §2. Mr. Akin’s position is refuted once again.
A brief word about
canon 844, §2. This canon allows Catholics, in
extremely limited circumstances, to approach non-Catholic ministers for
Penance, the Eucharist, and Extreme Unction, “in whose Churches” (“in
quorum Ecclesia”) these sacraments are valid. As I explained in
detail in my article “Do SSPX Masses Fulfill the Sunday Obligation?,”[23]
the SSPX is not a “Church” within the meaning of canon 844, §2,
as it was never established as a Church by competent ecclesiastical authority
(either in the universal sense of a church sui iuris, for example, or a
local particular church headed by a bishop with ordinary jurisdiction). The
SSPX is also not an “Eastern Church.”
Thus, similar to canon 1248, the ability to legally satisfy the permission for sacramental sharing under canon 844, §2 is tied to the Church in which the sacrament is given, and not merely to the validity of the minister’s ordination or the Missal he uses. This is another reason why Mr. Akin and Fr. Ripperger have erred in their interpretation of canon law and its application to SSPX Masses.
Closing Comments
As we have seen, a
Mass fulfills the Sunday obligation only if it is observed in the universal
Church under canon 1246 §1, which can be accomplished by celebrating the Mass
anywhere in one of the six Catholic Rites per canon 1248 §1. Again, even if one
were to narrowly interpret “rite” in canon 1248 §1 as an approved “Missal” or “liturgy” or “ritual” (which is
untenable), that rite must still be offered “in the universal Church” which is
made up of the six Rites and 24 Churches sui iuris throughout the world,
and include all the particular churches (dioceses and eparchies) governed by
bishops with title and ordinary jurisdiction, who are in union with the Pope.
The Masses offered by the SSPX do not meet these requirements.
When it comes to canon 1248 §1, knowing enough to be dangerous is dangerous indeed. A
superficial reading of the canon has led many into the spiritual danger of
worshiping outside the Catholic Church and failing to meet our obligations
before God. Further, as the Vatican has warned, formal adherence to schism,
which results in automatic excommunication, can come about slowly over time, as
one separates from his bishop by frequently or habitually assisting at Masses
outside of his communion.
In my previous article, I go through the many negative
judgments of the PCED (from 1984 to 2015) on assisting at SSPX Masses. Indeed,
there is not a single reply or authentic interpretation of canon law which
holds that SSPX Masses fulfill the ecclesiastical precept of canon 1248 (and
that is because they do not satisfy the precept). In fact, the only
PCED reply which directly addressed a dubium on whether “independent”
chapel Masses (in this case, associated with the SSPX) satisfy canon 1248
concluded that such Masses do not fulfill the Sunday obligation under
canon 1248 and which results in sin when such Masses are attended
for Sundays and Holy Days (Msgr. Pozzo, March 28, 2012).
It appears that Fr. Ripperger and Mr. Akin do not understand
the gravity of their position on the SSPX. For example, in his interview, Fr.
Ripperger flippantly stated: “If I were Pope, the first thing I would do is
call the head of the SSPX and say, you are to be at my office at 8.00 in the
morning, and what I would do is, when he showed up, I would write it out
myself, ‘you are canonically regularized!,’ here, go home, and we will figure
out the rest later.”[24]
However, both
Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have offered the SSPX to be
“canonically regularized,” on the condition that they accept certain basic
doctrinal principles and renounce certain errors, and the SSPX has refused. Evidently,
it does not matter to Fr. Ripperger that the SSPX, inter alia, rejects
the Catholic Church’s Profession of Faith (required by all who hold office in
the Church); that it calls Vatican II’s teaching on collegiality a “heresy”;
that it calls the Novus Ordo Mass “intrinsically
evil”; that it claims to have the Four Marks and the privileges of the ordinary
and universal Magisterium, while claiming the “conciliar Church” has defected;
that it promotes all kinds of errors and heresies on jurisdiction,
mission, sacramental intention, among other things; and that it runs its own “ecclesiastical” tribunal which grants marriage
annulments, dispensation from vows and the lifting of censures (and requires
its adherents to swear on the gospels that they will not approach a legitimate
tribunal but will abide by their judgments), all against the authority of the
local ordinaries and the Holy See. For Fr. Ripperger, the SSPX should be
“canonically regularized” by the Pope immediately, without regard to the
foregoing, which is none other than its habitual separation from the Pope, his
Magisterium and Catholic tradition. We live in confusing times indeed.
The heresies of
the early Church related primarily to Christology (the nature of Christ). But
the errors and heresies of our day relate almost exclusively to ecclesiology
(the nature of the Church). Indeed, a failure to understand what the Church is
(specifically, in her divine, juridical constitution) leads to many dangerous
errors, such as who is and is not a member of the Church, who has jurisdiction
in the Church, how jurisdiction is lost in the Church, and even what Masses
satisfy the Church’s ecclesiastical precepts. These errors are promoted not
only by those who have formally separated from the Church, like the
Sedevacantists, but also unwittingly by mainstream apologists who don’t even
attend SSPX chapels. This poses a grave spiritual harm, because it leads many
souls outside the Catholic Church, the only ark of salvation.
Like the Sedevacantists, the Old
Catholics, the “Dominicans” of Avrille, the Resistance and other independent
groups of acephalous clergy, the SSPX bishops and priests
are not part of the universal Catholic Church on Earth. That is why the Church
considers those who attend Mass at a Society chapel to not be in full
communion with the Catholic Church. In fact, in fidelity to their founder, SSPX bishops and priests
proudly admit that they are not part of what they call the “conciliar Church”
of Rome – which is none other than the Roman Catholic Church.
The Society admits it is not legally united to any particular
Church or diocese, and thus does not operate within any of the 24 Particular
churches or six Rites of the universal Church. The Society also does not have
bishops with ordinary jurisdiction and thus is not juridically united to the
Pope and College of Bishops. In fact, the Society is not only not part of the
universal Church, but readily admits that it operates contrary to the will of
the universal Church, that is, the Pope and College of Bishops. Fr. Jonathan Loop of the SSPX recently summarized it
perfectly when he said the Society operates “contrary to the known intentions,
the known will of those successors of the Apostles, the Princes of the Church.”[25]
This means SSPX Masses are not “observed in the universal
Church” and not “celebrated in a Catholic rite” as required by canon law.
Therefore, SSPX Masses do not fulfill the Sunday obligation.
[1]
1983 Code of Canon Law; Latin “… ubicumque celebrator ritu catholico…” (emphasis
added).
[2]
Spiritual Strength with Gene Zannetti, “Fr. Ripperger’s Widest Range of Topics
in One Show,” September 18, 2024, at 58.20.
[3]
Ibid, at 58.51.
[4]
Daniel Payne, “What is the SSPX? A Look at this Controversial Traditionalist
Catholic Group,” September 21, 2024, www.catholicworldreport.com.
[5] Lumen
Gentium explains that bishops govern their “particular churches” as a “portion
of the universal Church” (No. 23). See also CCC 886.
[6] Note
that under 1246 §2 certain holy days can be suppressed or transferred to
Sundays by the Episcopal Conference, with prior approval of the Holy See.
[7]
See CCC 835.
[8]
Also known as Constantinopolitan.
[9]
Also known as Antiochene.
[10] The
modern Catechism (para. 1203) lists them as seven rites: Latin, Byzantine,
Alexandrian (Coptic), Syriac, Armenian (West Syria), Maronite (West Syria) and
Chaldean (East Syria).
[11] John Beal, James Coriden, and Thomas Green, A New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law
(New York: Paulist Press, 2000), p. 1445.
[12]
Lessard-Thibodeau, “Arriving at the Juridic Status of the Priestly Society of
St. Pius X,” Faculty of Canon Law, St. Paul University, Ottawa, 2018, p. 40
(emphasis added).
[13]
Ibid., pp. 40-41.
[14]Archbishop
Lefebvre’s claims that the suppression was unlawful because he was denied
recourse to the Apostolic Signatura was canonically groundless because Pope
Paul VI approved the suppression in forma specifica, making the
suppression his own by express approbation. On June 29, 1975, Paul VI confirmed
the same to Lefebvre by writing: “We made all and each of them Ours, and We
personally ordered that they be immediately put into force.” Davies, Apologia,
Part I pp. 112-113.
[15] Moreover, prior to being suppressed, the SSPX was merely a
“pious union,” which is essentially a lay organization, and as such, was not a
juridic person under the Code, and possessed no authority to incardinate
priests or establish chapels.
[16] Letter to the
Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication
of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre (March 10, 2009) | Benedict
XVI (vatican.va). By “no canonical status,” Pope Benedict was
referring to this fact that the SSPX was lawfully suppressed by Pope Paul VI in
1975, at which time it was legally extinguished. See, for example, canons 120 §1;
373; 584. Lefebvre then went into schism, by contumaciously refusing, for the
next 15 years, to submit to the Pope’s authority and refusal of communion with
members of the Church subject to him (his contumacy included refusing the
Pope’s suppression of the SSPX, the decisions of the prohibition on ordaining
priests without dimissorial letters, etc.). For more details, see, for example,
Fr. John Lessard-Thibodeau’s 2018 canonical study “Arriving at the Juridic
Status of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X.”
[17]www.splendorofthechurch.com/2021/05/10/cardinal-burke-sspx-not-part-of-roman-catholic-church-has-schismatic-position.
[18] Canon 1249: The law
of hearing the Sacred [rites] is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a
Catholic rite under the sky or in any church or public or semi-public oratory
and in the little building of a private cemetery mentioned in Canon 1190, but
not in other private oratories, unless this privilege has been granted by the
Apostolic See.
[19] If anything, canon 1249 emphasized the
“apostolic tradition” of confining the obligation to observance within
the universal Church, since Masses at private oratories, which may have been
approved by the local ordinary (and, hence, juridically part of the universal
Church) did not qualify unless approved by the Holy See.
[20]
September 17, 2024, CNA Staff article, “Carmelite nuns
affiliate with Society of St. Pius X after yearlong feud with local bishop”
(fullycatholic.com).
[21] John
Beal, James Coriden, and Thomas Green, A
New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (New York: Paulist Press, 2000), p.
1115.
[22]
Ibid., p. 1116.
[23]
For a more detailed analysis of canon 844.2 as it relates to the SSPX, see my
previous article “Do SSPX Masses Satisfy the Sunday Obligation?,” www.trueorfalsepope.com, November 2021.
[24]
Interview at 1.01.09. Fr. Ripperger’s statement also raises further questions
about his ecclesiology. While the Pope can “regularize” the SSPX, writing the
statement out on a piece of paper is not how it would work. The Pope would have
to make the SSPX a Catholic church or equivalent (e.g., personal Prelature, an
institute of consecrated life or other such society, capable of receiving
priests through incardination) that would constitute a juridic person in the
Latin Rite, thereby making it part of the Roman Catholic Church. The Pope would
also either govern the SSPX directly or appoint a bishop to govern the SSPX by
means of ordinary jurisdiction (which could come from inside or outside the
SSPX). In this author’s opinion, the SSPX, as an organization, will never come
into the Catholic Church, not for doctrinal reasons, but rather financial ones
(it will never be willing to turn over its massive wealth and property to the
local bishops or Holy See).
[25] It
should be noted that extraordinary mission is always accepted by and works
together with the ordinary authority, not in opposition to it. Thus, on that
basis alone, according to Fr. Loop’s admission, the SSPX cannot justify its
“ministry” on the claim of extraordinary mission, nor does it have the miracles
to prove the same.
