Nous avons réçu une info importante du district américain de la FSSPX, et cette note a été ajoutée au texte:

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 mentioned 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 list of chapels, including in those 'independent chapels' identified by the Society publicly as 'friends of the Society of Saint Pius X'. It is very possible that that information, easily researched online on the website of the U.S.District, might have led someone in the Commission to believe that the chapel is a venue with no affiliation whatsoever to the SSPX and led to this different appraisal by the Commission.

Cependant, on avait mentionné cela dans le post original:

It is difficult to interpret this letter (as some are now trying to do) as not in any way referring to Masses offered by SSPX priests. The author of the original dubia explicitly refers to the canonical status of the SSPX priests by way of introduction to his questions (thus establishing the context of the dubia) and towards the end of his letter refers to the "Friends of the Society of St. Pius X" chapel as a chapel "affiliated with the Society of St. Pius X" (that is, it is not a Chapel of the SSPX, but one of a friendly independent priest). Nonetheless, the answers of the PCED do not show any evidence of ignoring the clear context in which the dubia were formulated and sent to it.

Soutenir le Forum Catholique dans son entretien, c'est possible. Soit à l'aide d'un virement mensuel soit par le biais d'un soutien ponctuel. Rendez-vous sur la page dédiée en cliquant ici. D'avance, merci !