By The bishop of Lourdes announced that the SSPX no longer has authorization at the shrine to celebrate the Mass or the sacraments, although individuals are free to come and pray privately.
The bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes in France, Jean-Marc Micas, has revoked the authorization for priests of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) to celebrate Mass or the sacraments at the Lourdes Shrine.
In an Aug. 13 statement, the French prelate explained that his decision is based on the Vatican decree of excommunication declaring the SSPX to be in a state of schism following its July 1 ordination of four bishops without a papal mandate.
“Following the decree of schism and excommunication published by the Holy See, I cannot authorize the celebration of the Mass or the other sacraments, not even the public prayers of the Society of St. Pius X within the shrine,” the bishop of Lourdes explained.
Therefore, “the authorization that until now was granted to the SSPX to do so is therefore withdrawn. On the other hand, it is obviously possible that whoever so desires can freely come to the grotto or other places at the shrine to pray privately,” the prelate noted.
“I am well aware of the pain and perhaps the lack of understanding that this decision will cause. I entrust my decision to God’s mercy. We are deeply pained by the tearing of Christ’s tunic caused by our divisions. They scandalize the little ones and hinder our witness to the Gospel,” the bishop stated.
This story was first published by ACI Prensa, the Spanish-language sister service of EWTN News. It has been translated and adapted by EWTN News English.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
So they DO HAVE “Masses and Sacraments!”
Yes, but their Masses and Sacraments are illicit. Two of their sacraments are invalid. They lack unified structure and jurisdictional approval since they are in formal schism, so this news isn’t surprising.
Masses with illicit practices aren’t exactly limited to the SSPX.
The SSPX is not in formal schism, not manifestly. 6 bishops have been excommunicated for that, but the Vatican declined to formally excommunicate any of the priests, including the leader of the Society.
While we can certainly construe according to our wits, the same applies to determining that priests or bishops are heretics: probably best not to do a blanket assumption for a large group.
Amanda, whether it is formal or not, the SSPX is in schism. For certain, the 6 illicit bishops excommunicated themselves. Any SSPX priest who adheres to them (possibly the majority) are at risk of the same thing themselves. Rome has spoken.
Masses with illicit practices are not the subject here. I directly stated that the SSPX’s Masses themselves are illicit. They lack unity with the Roman Pontiff and the rest of the worldwide Catholic Church, both Latin and Eastern Rite.
Not true. The “excommunications” were not performed according to canon law, and were executed under the authority of a pope whose election is questionable.
“I directly stated that the SSPX’s Masses themselves are illicit. ”
Your opinion. In no way authoritative. Now tell us about the Masses celebrated by the Erastian Pseudo-Catholics of China, and Leo’s submission to Francis and McCarrick’s ecclesial treason.
If Leo could detach himself from meeting with non-Catholics and celebrities and actually invited ordinary members of his flock to dine-I think I’d still decline the offer.
Ban the SSPX.
Fig leak Rupnik’s “art”..
“Catholic” translate into English as “universal” and such is a very large, umbrella term that should give shelter to all if it has any meaning that is lived within the Church.
There should be no room and every rejection of power struggles within any and all hierarchy that has developed within the Church as we remember that Christ, in the Gospels, tell us that the one who will be first is to be the servant of all the others, to live the humility of the faith as exampled by Christ himself who, as God the Son, humbled himself so as to become man, to become one of us in all things except sin.
It is understood as a great good when brothers and sisters can live in peace and harmony through, in and with the grace of God.
We, the Church, the “Mystical Body of Christ”, often seem to be concerned about the fleas while the camels are biting us.
Modernization for the sake of modernization is a dangerous path and a slippery slope that appears to support ideals that have become lost in immorality and a spiritual decline.
Tradition can lead us to be blind to the needs of our present situation.
The love of God, in all forms, is that which will lead us to the gift of our salvation through Christ.
Yours in Christ.
“Tradition can lead us to be blind to the needs of our present situation.”
How exactly? How does respect for the Deposit of Faith not address human needs that never change?
My experience with Tradition is that it is precisely what enables me to see the needs of our present situation, and provide for them.
We see things by comparison and contrast. We need the right view of the human person found in Tradition, in order to see the deficiencies of the modern world. The modern world by itself makes you nose blind to it.
But more precisely, we do not need knowledge and remedies for the modern world at large. We each need that for our particular situation, and for our particular soul. We bring that to the Church with our selves.
Pius X, a great leader who called out the deleterious trends of Modernism, a word that has been retranslated since to today’s New Paradigm, the consolidation of the mollifying doctrinal trends in, perhaps, a process of discussion called Synodality. Never ending always questioning subjecting eternal revelation to doubt, rejection of its binding character.
Only the blind do not perceive this. Only the morally blind have [fortuitously?] been appointed to manage and engineer. What the great saint would not have recommended was a break with the Chair of Peter instituted by Christ. Whether or not there were discrepancies of doctrinal presentation. True to its Founder the Roman pontiffs throughout the centuries never formally declared heresy.
SSPX claims that they remain faithful to the Roman pontiff, the authority of the Chair of Peter, but do not share that belief of indefectibility – as frequently articulated by Dr Robert Fastiggi, lecturer Sacred Heart Seminary Detroit and member of Where Peter Is, on this website.
For example many have accused Francis I of having taught heresy. Although there’s no evidence that this pontiff ever formally taught heresy. Therefore the claim of the SSPX is false. The Church is correct in demanding a retraction.
” Although there’s no ‘evidence’ that this pontiff ever formally taught heresy.”
Not sure which pope to which you refer here. If it’s Leo, you and I both, as well as many, expressed horror at his belief in the fungibility of doctrine.
If it’s Francis, well, the list is lengthy. A denial of the divinity of Christ while on earth. A denial of the sinlessness of Mary. An insistence that morality is changeable and does change over time. An implicit acceptance of divorce and remarriage. A denial of the personhood of the unborn. An affirmation that a sexually deviant life can be a blessing from God. There are more that can listed.
May God bless every individual and community that publicly and forcefully defy bad popes in loyalty to Christ first and remind the world that right is right no matter who or how many are wrong. And wrong is wrong no matter who is wrong and how few are right.
Yes Edward, there were moments with Pope Leo and moreso Francis in which remarks were made that were erroneous. Although, they were not made formally, as definitive pronouncements made to the Church.
The only Pope that was condemned for heresy by a council of bishops was Honorius I. After his death, regarding a letter to the Orthodox patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople in which he agreed with his Monothelitism, the belief that Christ had one will, a divine will, whereas the Church holds Christ also had a human will [Not my will but they will be done].
He was therefore condemned for his error in the status of a ‘person’ rather than when acting formally as a Roman pontiff.
That distinction is significant, since it distinguishes the human capacity of a pope to err. Pope Francis was clever in saying what’s contrary to Apostolic Tradition by ambiguity, informality, avoiding successive repetitions of his errors. Leo’s fungibility of doctrine, plus Synodality is indicative of his commitment to continue in Pope Francis’ lead.
We defy these errors as put, but we remain within the Church in recognition of the unifying Chair of Peter.
I appreciate and, as always, respect your comments, and I do understand the distinction between material and formal heresy. But I can never separate in my mind the monstrous repercussions of tolerating the foolhardiness of bad popes without dramatic opposition. When the voice of bad popes says to the world that the Church is just making things up as we go along, it conveys to the morally confused such things that it’s okay to rid yourself of your inconvenient baby after all. No one really knows what is true. Not even God knows.
Although I believe as previously stated that the Vatican, specifically Pope Leo should have, for example he denied the SSPX Superior Fr Davide a personal meeting – done everything legitimate and possible to reconcile the SSPX with Rome.