Levada: SSPX Mass Does NOT Fulfill Obligation

queenofmartyrspress.blogspot.com/2012/05/ecclesia-dei-mass-obligation-not.html

This is an FYI post… for the moment.

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2012/05/31/levada-sspx-mass-does-not-fulfill-obligation/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

6 comments on “Levada: SSPX Mass Does NOT Fulfill Obligation

  1. Is it Levada or some guy named “Guido Pozzo” using the big guy’s stationery. :)

  2. I think that the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts is the only body authorized to issue definitive interpretations of canon law. Therefore, this letter would be a private opinion, as was the previous opinion of Cardinal Castrillon that SSPX Masses DO fulfill the Sunday obligation. In the absence of an authoritative interpretation by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, it seems to me that the faithful can safely follow Cardinal Castrillon’s opinion.

  3. Columba on said:

    ‘Tis an ill omen for the rapprochement.

    • … or an act of desperation coming from someone on the losing side who is hoping to derail a possible Vatican acceptance of the SSPX, maybe?

      There is likely a bit of an internal “turf war” at the Vatican over this issue, as it seems that the Ecclesia Dei Commission would stand to be a loser in any regularization of the SSPX. Bureaucrats do not tend to surrender power or influence willingly.

      Also, the wording of the questions answered by the EDC is rather curious. The questions were in reference to a specific chapel, and asked for answers based “strictly” on one point of Canon Law. As the response did not go beyond answering the very narrow questions asked, this does not appear to be a general answer that would contradict Cardinal Castrillon’s previous statements.

      Finally, I cannot help but recall that Cardinal Levada was a horribly ineffective bishop of a single diocese, either unable or unwilling to exercise any control over radical homosexuals making a mockery of Catholic churches in San Francisco; I would be very much surprised if such a weak leader is any more effective at running an important Vatican office. Indeed, the only good reason I can think of for putting such a poor leader in this position is if it was on its way to being phased out or at least marginalized (i.e., put him in a place where he can’t do much damage… of course, this conjecture would be more plausible if his successor in San Francisco wasn’t also deficient in the spine department).

  4. From RORATE CAELI:

    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 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 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 with the SSPX and led to this different appraisal by the Commission.

Leave a Reply