Catholics vs the SSPX

[daniel_connolly]

My only argument here is that the Protestant Reformation was actually a rejection of things Catholic, not a ‘different version of the same’. Luther, Cranmer, et al, introduced things which were outright rejections of Catholic Dogmas (and therefore Apostolic Truths). Since the heart of Catholicity is the Sacrifice of the Mass, doing away with all the ‘hocus pocus’ was their aim. Of course the service might resemble ‘something’, they were trying to maintain their being Christians to some degree…

Don’t you think it odd that Bugnini, a declared Freemason, and six Protestant theologians were brought in to work out the new mass? Isn’t that the last people you’d want to deliver something Catholic to the world? And why on earth do we now have Churches where Jesus Christ, in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is truly Present in the tabernacle, has been relegated to some side chapel- IN HIS OWN HOUSE??

Anyway, have a good one!

 

[St_Isidore]

Wow, your comments are very angry and ignorant

…
Not charitable at all

First, laypersons (even "clipped haired women’) can serve as extraordinary ministers of holy communion in the Church, per the Holy See.

Second, the normative Pauline Mass was not “fabricated by a Free Mason and a number of Protestants.” That comment is so outwardly laughable that I truly hope you are trying to be funny. If you’re not, I feel sorry for you.

So it was fabricated nonetheless.

Although the Primary Architect, ‘Bugnini’. Freemason or not was sent off and never allowed to return, let alone be made a Cardinal.

Unusual that such a key figure was let go and in a way punished for making the ‘so called’ great Pauline Mass.

 

[Sure]

And why on earth do we now have Churches where Jesus Christ, in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is truly Present in the tabernacle, has been relegated to some side chapel- IN HIS OWN HOUSE??

Like St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican?

Don’t most of the great cathedrals have the Eucharist reserved in a side chapel?

I agree that there is a good tradition in smaller churches of having the tabernacle in the sanctuary centered behind the altar, but it is not necessarily a sign of “protestantism” to have it in a side chapel.

 

[Sure]

…
Not charitable at all



So it was fabricated nonetheless.

Although the Primary Architect, ‘Bugnini’. Freemason or not was sent off and never allowed to return, let alone be made a Cardinal.

Unusual that such a key figure was let go and in a way punished for making the ‘so called’ great Pauline Mass.

I assume you are using the word fabricate because that is what the english version of Cardinal Ratzinger’s book says. True?
Just so you know, the word fabricate means “put together.” It is not being used in the sense of “deception”.

Also,

Cardinal Ratzinger has written much more recently about the development of the liturgy. He says:

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

Whatever negative associations may be presented in a word like “fabricate” would seem to be offset by words like “growth and progress.”

 

[tcraig]

Whatever negative associations may be presented in a word like “fabricate” would seem to be offset by words like “growth and progress.”

I think many people think of “fabricate” negatively because of the NO masses that are so common in parishes today. I have attended a Latin NO, and it bears little to no resemblance to the average OCP-scripted mess that I usually must endure. In fact, the first time I attended a NO Latin mass I was confused - I thought at first it was the TLM, then there were some changes, then it seemed like the TLM again. The Latin NO has much in common with the TLM, and I can see what the aim was with the changes - and it is good. In fact, my husband prefers a Latin/English NO over a TLM.

I’m not really sure what happened in the 1960’s-1970’s that caused the mass to deteriorate so much … But I do know that the NO wasn’t “designed” by protestants. As a former protestant I certainly wouldn’t have been happy with a Latin NO! But I do know that the version of the mass that is celebrated in most parishes today is pretty generic and unappealing. It also bears a lot of resemblance to my former Methodist service - so I do see where the “protestantized” accusations come from.

I sometimes wonder if the NO had been properly celebrated from the start if we would be having these TLM vs. NO discussions.

 

[St_Isidore]

I’m not really sure what happened in the 1960’s-1970’s that caused the mass to deteriorate so much … But I do know that the NO wasn’t “designed” by protestants. As a former protestant I certainly wouldn’t have been happy with a Latin NO! But I do know that the version of the mass that is celebrated in most parishes today is pretty generic and unappealing. It also bears a lot of resemblance to my former Methodist service - so I do see where the “protestantized” accusations come from.

I too have experienced the resemblances to Christian denominational worship. The NO mass is more similar to these services than to the TLM. Yes the generic brand type service has definitely contributed to the lack of its appeal

I sometimes wonder if the NO had been properly celebrated from the start if we would be having these TLM vs. NO discussions.

It is not only the celebration that brings about the comparisons between the NO and The TLM masses, but also what it is they contain. E.g. The words of Consecration, Removal of Prayers in the NO, the table, addition to the Pater Noster (Our Father), etc., all have been brought up as differences between the two. So the discussions would still be an ongoing occurrence today

 

[JohnnyReb]

I too have experienced the resemblances to Christian denominational worship. The NO mass is more similar to these services than to the TLM. Yes the generic brand type service has definitely contributed to the lack of its appeal

It is not only the celebration that brings about the comparisons between the NO and The TLM masses, but also what it is they contain. E.g. The words of Consecration, Removal of Prayers in the NO, the table, addition to the Pater Noster (Our Father), etc., all have been brought up as differences between the two. So the discussions would still be an ongoing occurrence today

Interesting. I go to a NO mass, and am in the process of conversion right now. I came from a Baptist and Pentecostal background, and the mass bears very little resemblence to a low church protestant service. I did go briefly to an ELCA Lutheran church and the mass still seems very different, though less different that with a low church service.

I guess it depends on your perspective as to how one sees it. I have never been to a TLM ( I would not be against going to one to see what it was like)

 

[Sure]

I too have experienced the resemblances to Christian denominational worship. The NO mass is more similar to these services than to the TLM. Yes the generic brand type service has definitely contributed to the lack of its appeal

It is not only the celebration that brings about the comparisons between the NO and The TLM masses, but also what it is they contain. E.g. The words of Consecration, Removal of Prayers in the NO, the table, addition to the Pater Noster (Our Father), etc., all have been brought up as differences between the two. So the discussions would still be an ongoing occurrence today

As I posted above, the reason the Protestant service and the OF Mass are similar is that they are both derivatives of the EF Mass. An OF Mass done right seems much closer to the EF Mass than to an average Protestant Service.

It is definitely the manner of celebration that caused the problems. No one gets upset when they attend a properly celebrated reverent OF Mass. Because when it’s done right, it’s unabashedly Catholic. The abuses that came in waves were caused not by a liturgy (which would be impossible) but by priests who were poorly formed. Bad priests abuse the liturgy; good priests don’t. In the 70’s and 80’s we had lots of bad priests many of whom attended the seminary before Vatican II. Modernism was alive and well in the US seminaries in the 40’s and 50’s.

Not to nitpick but perhaps could you use the word Altar instead of table? Yes, they look similar but they are not the same. And it’s not like the freestanding Altar is some modern invention.

Also, what was the addition to the Our Father?

 

[stmaria]

I assume you are using the word fabricate because that is what the english version of Cardinal Ratzinger’s book says. True?
Just so you know, the word fabricate means “put together.” It is not being used in the sense of “deception”

Cardinal Ratzinger has written much more recently about the development of the liturgy. He says:
Whatever negative associations may be presented in a word like “fabricate” would seem to be offset by words like “growth and progress.”

“What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over the centuries, and replaced it–as in a manufacturing process–with a fabrication, a banal on- the-spot product.” (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger)
unavoce.org/gambhlts.htm

 

[stmaria]

Originally Posted by daniel connolly
And why on earth do we now have Churches where Jesus Christ, in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is truly Present in the tabernacle, has been relegated to some side chapel- IN HIS OWN HOUSE??

Like St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican?

Don’t most of the great cathedrals have the Eucharist reserved in a side chapel?

I agree that there is a good tradition in smaller churches of having the tabernacle in the sanctuary centered behind the altar, but it is not necessarily a sign of “protestantism” to have it in a side chapel.

Why don’t Churches simply follow the wishes of Pope Benedict?
SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS
BENEDICT XVI
The location of the tabernacle
69. In considering the importance of eucharistic reservation and adoration, and reverence for the sacrament of Christ’s sacrifice, the Synod of Bishops also discussed the question of the proper placement of the tabernacle in our churches. (196) The correct positioning of the tabernacle contributes to the recognition of Christ’s real presence in the Blessed Sacrament. Therefore, the place where the eucharistic species are reserved, marked by a sanctuary lamp, **should be readily visible to everyone entering the church. **It is therefore necessary to take into account the building’s architecture: in churches which do not have a Blessed Sacrament chapel, and where the high altar with its tabernacle is still in place, it is appropriate to continue to use this structure for the reservation and adoration of the Eucharist, taking care not to place the celebrant’s chair in front of it. In new churches, it is good to position the Blessed Sacrament chapel close to the sanctuary; where this is not possible, **it is preferable to locate the tabernacle in the sanctuary, **in a sufficiently elevated place, at the centre of the apse area, or in another place where it will be equally conspicuous. Attention to these considerations will lend dignity to the tabernacle

 

[Sure]

Why don’t Churches simply follow the wishes of Pope Benedict?
SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS
BENEDICT XVI
The location of the tabernacle
69. In considering the importance of eucharistic reservation and adoration, and reverence for the sacrament of Christ’s sacrifice, the Synod of Bishops also discussed the question of the proper placement of the tabernacle in our churches. (196) The correct positioning of the tabernacle contributes to the recognition of Christ’s real presence in the Blessed Sacrament. Therefore, the place where the eucharistic species are reserved, marked by a sanctuary lamp, **should be readily visible to everyone entering the church. **It is therefore necessary to take into account the building’s architecture: in churches which do not have a Blessed Sacrament chapel, and where the high altar with its tabernacle is still in place, it is appropriate to continue to use this structure for the reservation and adoration of the Eucharist, taking care not to place the celebrant’s chair in front of it. In new churches, it is good to position the Blessed Sacrament chapel close to the sanctuary; where this is not possible, **it is preferable to locate the tabernacle in the sanctuary, **in a sufficiently elevated place, at the centre of the apse area, or in another place where it will be equally conspicuous. Attention to these considerations will lend dignity to the tabernacle

Thank you. That is a good quote and confirms what I wrote above.

 

[GerardP]

One of the more insidious plans I’ve seen to undermine reverence for the Eucharist is a twist on the idea of stuffing Him off in a corner.

I’ve seen at least one church building where He’s displayed everywhere! Making it impossible to navigate through the building without genuflecting the oddest places.

The Church is round and the tabernacle is set back on the “stage” Which is fine, but the trick is the huge jacuzzi baptismal font which blocks a person from genuflecting upon entering the Church.

The second trick is a side chapel with glass walls like a raquetball court. That way if you are walking on one of the side aisles or standing in line for the confessional, you are directly facing the monstrance through the glass which is at a 90 degree angle to the Tabernacle.

It’s amazing how the creativity of people who do not want you to genuflect (or believe in Catholicism) will force the architecture to attack your faith.

 

[Sure]

“What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over the centuries, and replaced it–as in a manufacturing process–with a fabrication, a banal on- the-spot product.” (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger)
unavoce.org/gambhlts.htm

That was what 20 years ago??? And this quotation confirms that he used the word “fabricate” to mean “put together” (as I noted) and not as “deceive”. I don’t even know if the word fabricate has the same alternative negative meaning in German.

This is what he says now:

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

So, yes he says it was “put together” and calls it a “banal, on-the-spot product” (again, I wonder what the German words were) and now he calls it “growth and progress” and recognizes its “value and holiness.”

 

[stmaria]

I agree that there is a good tradition in smaller churches of having the tabernacle in the sanctuary centered behind the altar, but it is not necessarily a sign of “protestantism” to have it in a side chapel.

It certainly isn’t a sign of Catholicism to have it in a side chapel.
Treating the Tabernacle as if were some ancient relic is certainity not Catholic.

 

[Sure]

One of the more insidious plans I’ve seen to undermine reverence for the Eucharist is a twist on the idea of stuffing Him off in a corner.

I’ve seen at least one church building where He’s displayed everywhere! Making it impossible to navigate through the building without genuflecting the oddest places.

The Church is round and the tabernacle is set back on the “stage” Which is fine, but the trick is the huge jacuzzi baptismal font which blocks a person from genuflecting upon entering the Church.

The second trick is a side chapel with glass walls like a raquetball court. That way if you are walking on one of the side aisles or standing in line for the confessional, you are directly facing the monstrance through the glass which is at a 90 degree angle to the Tabernacle.

It’s amazing how the creativity of people who do not want you to genuflect (or believe in Catholicism) will force the architecture to attack your faith.

That is crazy. They should not have the Eucharist reserved in more than one place.

 

[stmaria]

That was what 20 years ago??? And this quotation confirms that he used the word “fabricate” to mean “put together” (as I noted) and not as “deceive”. I don’t even know if the word fabricate has the same alternative negative meaning in German.

This is what he says now:

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

So, yes he says it was “put together” and calls it a “banal, on-the-spot product” (again, I wonder what the German words were) and now he calls it “growth and progress” and recognizes its “value and holiness.”

He is trying not to be devisive because now he is the Shepard where as before he could speak his mind as a mere Cardinal. Now he has to be careful how he says things because of all the opposition he is facing. Notice how he said, " and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful"
Amazing that the Mass of the Apostles was forbidden and considered harmful.

 

[GerardP]

As I posted above, the reason the Protestant service and the OF Mass are similar is that they are both derivatives of the EF Mass. An OF Mass done right seems much closer to the EF Mass than to an average Protestant Service.

But they are both impoverished litrugical forms. Michael Davies pointed out that anything that was “too Catholic” had to go and the models for the Novus Ordo were the omissions that Cranmer made. Though at a much quicker pace.

It is definitely the manner of celebration that caused the problems.

The push for the liturgical changes were brought about by modernists who no longer held the Catholic faith. The Novus Ordo requires a Catholic to bring many things to the liturgy that are not so clearly expressed. They were expressed by the Old Liturgy. That’s why the mods pushed so hard for the changes and that’s why they are complaining so much about the return of the TLM.

No one gets upset when they attend a properly celebrated reverent OF Mass.

Unless you consider the impoverished texts of the Latin, the loud consecration and numerous other problems illustrated in the Ottaviani Intervention.

Because when it’s done right, it’s unabashedly Catholic.

Or High Anglican or Lutheran or Calvinist…

The abuses that came in waves were caused not by a liturgy (which would be impossible) but by priests who were poorly formed.

A liturgy with fewer Catholic defenses against misunderstanding and more opportunities for abuse is the perfect vehicle to undermine the Church.

Bad priests abuse the liturgy; good priests don’t.

Bad priest abuse liturgy. Good priests do the best they can with what they have.

In the 70’s and 80’s we had lots of bad priests many of whom attended the seminary before Vatican II. Modernism was alive and well in the US seminaries in the 40’s and 50’s.

Atila Sinke Guimareas 2 volume “Animus Delendi” (Desire to Destroy) provides a track record of the plan that was hatched and developed to destroy the TLM. That was the plan. Not “reform” the Liturgy.

Not to nitpick but perhaps could you use the word Altar instead of table? Yes, they look similar but they are not the same. And it’s not like the freestanding Altar is some modern invention.

Pius XII in Mediator day referred to it as a “tableform” and called it “straying from the right path” and “archeaologism” to think that something that was done in the early Church is more appropriate than the fruit of development that was acheived by the post-Trent period.

 

[Sure]

stmaria:
It certainly isn’t a sign of Catholicism to have it in a side chapel.
Treating the Tabernacle as if were some ancient relic is certainity not Catholic.

So, St. Peter’s Basilica and the numerous other great cathedrals are not Catholic?

Don’t get me wrong. As I stated, there is a long and good tradition (that should be preserved!) of having the Tabernacle centered in the sanctuary behind the Altar, but it is not as though the concept reserving the Blessed Sacrament in a side chapel is some new-fangled idea.

 

[zagjames]

The NO Mass was written to be celebrated at the high alter, ad orientem style. But it was never disallowed to celebrate it the other way.

catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=1442

The NO is protestentized, not because of the the wording but because of the freedoms taken with it.

Turn the Priest around, celebrate it in Latin and follow the rubrics to the T and I doubt you would complain too much. If you like the Tridintine you would still perfer it but… you would be okay with I am willing to bet.

The hatred of the NO comes from the freedoms that people take with it.

I’m all for going back to Tridintine, Dominican and Fransiscan Rites of Mass and ditching the NO. Oh and we should bring in the Anglican Use more!

As for taking communion at an SSPX Church, don’t. Unless you agree with their disagreeing with the Pope. Their Sacrafice is valid, but… just as you should not take communion at an Orthodox Church because to do so shows solidarity with their line of thinking. If it is your only option then it is okay to.

 

[Sure]

Pius XII in Mediator day referred to it as a “tableform” and called it “straying from the right path” and “archeaologism” to think that something that was done in the early Church is more appropriate than the fruit of development that was acheived by the post-Trent period.

Odd considering that he said Mass at a freestanding Altar.

I still hold that it is perfectly valid to point out that the condition of the Church was hurt by liturgical abuse. Had the OF Mass always been said properly we would not have nearly the issues we have now (or had worse in the 80’s).

I know you don’t like the OF Mass, but please remember when Pope Benedict says, “The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness” he might be correct.