False Traditionalists and the Indult Mass

[JKirkLVNV]

tcraig:

I *do *think the NO is sacrilegious. That doesn’t mean that I don’t accept it as the normative rite of the Catholic Church today. I also attend it when I have no other option.

You might want to say that differently, because to outright say that it is sacreligious is to give voice to heresy (according to the Council of Trent, which said that the Church was not capable of putting forth a defective Mass). To say that it is sacreligious is to say that it is defective. You can say that it’s “loud,” or you can say that it isn’t “conducive to reverence” (I would disagree) or “not as nice a Mass as the TLM,” (again, I’d disagree), but to say that it is sacreligioius is heresy, plain and simple. You are essentially saying that the Church has erred, in particular in the office of the one who cannot teach error to the Church in matters of faith and morals (and the Mass is central to our faith). This Mass was promulgated by the Pope and celebrated by him and his three successors. It is entirely all that it should be in order to confect the Sacrifice. If it was “sacreligious,” it couldn’t do this, the ultimate task of the Church. I prayerfully urge you to repent of this grave error.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Malleus:

Unlike the Orthodox who do not recognize the universal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff or that he is the Vicar of Christ, the SSPX BELIEVES in BOTH. Disobedience to innovations suggested but the Vatican is NOT the SAME thing as schism; at least FORMAL Schism.

The Society is in formal schism, in its bishops and in it priests. It is a fairy tale to claim otherwise. Now, we can pray that they repent of their error (indeed, it is particularly incumbent upon us to do so, as they are not material schismatics and, but formal ones, and possible formal heretics as well, whose culpability is undiminished and thus we can only look to what the Church teaches as to what awaits them after death), but to say that they aren’t in error and schism (and possible heresy) is the same error that is committed by those on the extreme left, who want to tell homosexuals that their disorder is “good” or a “blessing” as long as it is expressed in a committed relationship! Whether you fall out of the left side of the boat or the right side of the boat, you’ve still fallen out of the boat.

 

[Malleus]

JKirkLVNV:

The Society is in formal schism, in its bishops and in it priests.

Here we go again…

The man appointed by Pope JPII and still is in office under BXVI responsible for the reconciliation of traditionalists DECLARED…

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism.

Read the full article: 30giorni.it/us/articolo_stampa.asp?id=9360

I know its hard to realize that you’ve been fed a lie since 1988 and even before! BUT YOU WERE!!!

 

[DavidJoseph]

tcraig:

Since I’m not aware of any teachings from Vatican II that are binding upon Catholics as matters of faith, I don’t know that there is anything to “disobey”.

The teachings of Vatican II still require your assent. As Pope Paul VI said to Archbishop Lefebvre, “You cannot invoke the distinction between dogmatic and pastoral in order to accept certain texts of the Council and to refute others. Certainly, all that was said in the Council does not demand an assent of the same nature, only that which is affirmed as an object of faith or truth attached to the faith, by definitive acts, require an assent of faith. But the rest is also a part of the solemn magisterium of the Church to which all faithful must make a confident reception and a sincere application.”

And there ARE teachings that Vatican II defined – that the subdiaconate is just a sacramental, that consecration to the episcopate isn’t a new sacrament but rather the fullness of holy orders, that scripture and tradition were both part of Divine Revelation, that religious liberty is to be given (that the state can’t force a religion on people; they had Catholics living in Communist countries in mind, as the state tried to impose atheism), that the BVM is Mother of the Church and properly understood as a member of the Church, etc.

As far as ignoring, what’s wrong with ignoring something you think has no value or worth? I “ignore” the new Luminous Mysteries that our previous pontiff introduced. I also “ignore” ecumenism, because I think it’s silly and stupid and utterly pointless. Ignoring something does not mean that you’re ignorant of its existence.

As a Catholic, you are bound to accept ecumenism as a good thing, which is what the Church teaches. I’m not referring to false ecumenism; the Church condemns that and always has. What I’m talking about is TRUE ecumenism – the kind that doesn’t water down Church teaching so as not to be “offensive.”

Thinking that something is sacrilegious is different from thinking it invalid or illicit. Look up the definition if you’re unsure. As someone who has attended many reverent NO masses, and was also a parishioner for several years at your particular TLM church, I *do *think the NO is sacrilegious. That doesn’t mean that I don’t accept it as the normative rite of the Catholic Church today. I also attend it when I have no other option.

That’s a rather schizophrenic idea to have – calling the Novus Ordo Mass sacrilegious and yet accepting it as the normative rite of the Church. Besides, if something is sacrilegious, then by its very nature it’s illicit. In addition, the Church CANNOT promulgate a sacrilegious rite of Mass. As the Council of Trent said in its 7th canon on the Sacrifice of the Mass, “If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of Masses are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.” Now if the Novus Ordo Mass is intrinsically sacrilegious or evil, then Trent didn’t know what it was talking about when it made the above statement, as it said that an approved Liturgy of the Church CANNOT be evil. But Trent did indeed know what it was talking about. If something is intrinsically evil or sacrilegious, then it’s naturally an incentive to impiety, while Trent declared dogmatically that the approved liturgical ceremonies of the Catholic Church can’t be incentives to impiety.

I hate to tell you, but if you think the Novus Ordo Mass is intrinsically sacrilegious, then you have placed yourself outside the Church and are thus NOT in the proper state to receive the sacraments. Thinking such things is objectively a threefold mortal sin – blasphemy, heresy, and schism. It’s blasphemy because it involves calling evil that which the Church says is good and holy. It’s heresy because it’s denying what Trent said above. And it’s schism because by holding such views one isn’t submitting themselves to the Church’s authority. The Church determines what is sacrilegious, not us.

It’s okay to admire people for standing up for things you think is important, even if they aren’t generally accepted as “admirable”. I know a few people who admire many qualities in Hitler, even though they don’t approve of all his actions. There are quite a few protestants that I admire, even though I think their theology is skewed. So why does someone admiring the SSPX and other independent priests bother you so much? Far better, in my opinion, to admire *them, *than, say, a Cardinal Mahony.

That’s like saying that those who kill abortionists deserve admiration even if what they did was morally wrong simply because they’re (allegedly) standing up for the unborn.

 

[Malleus]

JKirkLVNV:

You might want to say that differently, because to outright say that it is sacreligious is to give voice to heresy (according to the Council of Trent, which said that the Church was not capable of putting forth a defective Mass). To say that it is sacreligious is to say that it is defective. You can say that it’s “loud,” or you can say that it isn’t “conducive to reverence” (I would disagree) or “not as nice a Mass as the TLM,” (again, I’d disagree), but to say that it is sacreligioius is heresy, plain and simple. You are essentially saying that the Church has erred, in particular in the office of the one who cannot teach error to the Church in matters of faith and morals (and the Mass is central to our faith). This Mass was promulgated by the Pope and celebrated by him and his three successors. It is entirely all that it should be in order to confect the Sacrifice. If it was “sacreligious,” it couldn’t do this, the ultimate task of the Church. I prayerfully urge you to repent of this grave error.

I would say that the novus ordo PROMOTES SACRELIGE:

1. By giving communion in the hand.
2. By the priest not being careful with the particles which fall from the host. Since EVERY particle IS God Himself. Allowing God to fall on the floor and then SEPPED ON is an unimaginable sin.
3. By turning the Mass into entertainment and thus spitting in the face of Christ crucified on mount Golgotha. Scince THIS IS THE MASS.
4. By the priest giving their back to GOD. Thus facing the Creature rather than the creator. Against 2000 years of tradition. Let alone Jewish practice.
5. By reducing the sacredness of the priesthood and consecrated hands of the priest by encouraging every Tom, Dick or Harry or Harriette these days to handle the SACRED VESSLES and the BODY OF GOD INCARNATE.
6. By removing the holiness of the SANCTUARY where only those consecrated by God should have the privilege of enetring.
7. By Removing much of the SACRIFICIAL NATURE and PRAYERS and GESTURES of the traditional liturgy.
8. By ripping the Tabernacle from its throne. Shoving Jesus in a corner instead of being in the very centre of the Main Altar; as in EVERY other Rite of the Church.
9. Loss of the sense of the sacred and belief in the substancial pesence of Christ in the Eucharist.

That’s ENOUGH for now.

 

[Scotty_PGH]

Another day, another boring anti-TLM thread. :yawn:

Oh and look, JKIR and Sean OL showed up, what a shocker!

 

[DavidJoseph]

Scotty PGH:

Another day, another boring anti-TLM thread.:yawn:

No, it’s not an anti-TLM thread. You’re totally missing the point. It’s an anti-heresy thread. And it’s heresy to think the Novus Ordo Mass is intrinsically evil or sacrilegious! It’s perfectly ok to prefer the TLM, but it’s not ok to think the alternative is evil!

Oh and look, JKIR and Sean OL showed up, what a shocker!

They defend the faith from cafeteria Catholics, which is basically what false traditionalists are.

 

[DavidJoseph]

Malleus:

I would say that the novus ordo PROMOTES SACRELIGE:

1. By giving communion in the hand.
2. By the priest not being careful with the particles which fall from the host. Since EVERY particle IS God Himself. Allowing God to fall on the floor and then SEPPED ON is an unimaginable sin.
3. By turning the Mass into entertainment and thus spitting in the face of Christ crucified on mount Golgotha. Scince THIS IS THE MASS.
4. By the priest giving their back to GOD. Thus facing the Creature rather than the creator. Against 2000 years of tradition. Let alone Jewish practice.
5. By reducing the sacredness of the priesthood and consecrated hands of the priest by encouraging every Tom, Dick or Harry or Harriette these days to handle the SACRED VESSLES and the BODY OF GOD INCARNATE.
6. By removing the holiness of the SANCTUARY where only those consecrated by God should have the privilege of enetring.
7. By Removing much of the SACRIFICIAL NATURE and PRAYERS and GESTURES of the traditional liturgy.
8. By ripping the Tabernacle from its throne. Shoving Jesus in a corner instead of being in the very centre of the Main Altar; as in EVERY other Rite of the Church.
9. Loss of the sense of the sacred and belief in the substancial pesence of Christ in the Eucharist.

That’s ENOUGH for now.

NONE of that is the fault of the Novus Ordo itself.

 

[pgoings]

I think the old Holy Father (and IMHO he dealt very gently with them up until the motu proprio) wouldn’t have to be a mind reader to see schismatic disobedience in this instance.

I think there are any number of reasons why one could assume that the actions of Abp Lefebvre and the* consecrandi* indicated “schismatic disobedience.” However, it is perfectly clear in the Code that no penalty is incurred in such an instance if the person is acting in good faith, according to their conscience. Without mind reading it is simply impossible to determine this for certain. Thus it cannot be said definitively that the* latae sententiae* excommunication was incurred. The only way around this would have been a* ferendae sententiae* excommunication, and the Holy Father chose not to impose this.

And a note on terminology: Persons can commit the sin and crime of schism, not organizations. So the S.S.P.X. cannot be, by definition, schismatic. At worst one can say that it’s leaders are in schism and that they intend to promote schism through the Society. If we are to discuss canon law and its effects, let us make sure we have things as correct as possible.

 

[pgoings]

On the other hand… screeds like this:

I would say that the novus ordo PROMOTES SACRELIGE:

(and the author goes on to list a number of the “defects” of the* Novus Ordo Missae*)

are extremely unhelpful, because in many cases the items on the list are simply untrue, or condemn as sacrilegious things which have been traditional in the Church for many centuries, or condemn things which were customary in places well into the 20th century, which the author seems to be simply unfamiliar with.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Malleus:

Here we go again…

The man appointed by Pope JPII and still is in office under BXVI responsible for the reconciliation of traditionalists DECLARED…

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism.

Read the full article: 30giorni.it/us/articolo_stampa.asp?id=9360

I know its hard to realize that you’ve been fed a lie since 1988 and even before! BUT YOU WERE!!!

I know its hard to realize that you’ve been fed a lie since whenever you started reading schismatic literature, but a Pope trumps a cardinal any day, in any hand. AND LOOK CAREFULLY AT WHAT THE POOR CARDINAL IS SAYING: “EVEN IF IT WAS NOT A FORMAL SCHISM.” He isn’t saying here that it WASN’T formal. Here’s something that the rather erudite Andreas Hoffer said in this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1103015#post1103015

"Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with the subjunctive tense, which, if the translation is correct, was used by His Eminence. “Even if there were no formal schism” speaks of something that may or may not be true. For the Cardinal to have declared no formal schism to exist he would have said “even if there was no formal schism” or, better yet, “even though there was no formal schism.”

 

[wannabee]

That’s more than a bit pompous

"Perhaps you’re unfamiliar with the subjunctive tense, which, if the translation is correct, was used by His Eminence. “Even if there were no formal schism” speaks of something that may or may not be true. For the Cardinal to have declared no formal schism to exist he would have said “even if there was no formal schism” or, better yet, “even though there was no formal schism.”

This is not the place for a lesson in correct language usage

 

[GoLatin]

wannabee:

That’s more than a bit pompous

This is not the place for a lesson in correct language usage

If correct language usage helps to CORRECTLY interpret what someone(such as a Cardinal) says, then I am all for correct language!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Malleus:

I would say that the novus ordo PROMOTES SACRELIGE:

1. By giving communion in the hand. A) An ancient practice from the Apostolic and Patristic period and B) permitted by the Church, the disciplines of which cannot promote sacrelige.
2. By the priest not being careful with the particles which fall from the host. Since EVERY particle IS God Himself. Allowing God to fall on the floor and then SEPPED ON is an unimaginable sin. ** I dunno about the hosts where you are, but ours take a long time to dissolve**, never mind crumble.
3. By turning the Mass into entertainment and thus spitting in the face of Christ crucified on mount Golgotha. Scince THIS IS THE MASS. Unless you are speaking of a specific abuse, you should be ashamed of yourself for speaking so of the normative Mass of the Church, offered for the propitiation of our sins. Are you saying that the Pauline Mass is inherently, of it’s nature, so flawed that it cannot help, but be abused? If so, then that’s heresy and I will pray for you.
4. By the priest giving their back to GOD. Thus facing the Creature rather than the creator. Against 2000 years of tradition. Let alone Jewish practice. Bad history, baldly put. There is no reliable evidence (though there’s plenty of radical traditionalist propaganda) that the Apostolic or Patristic Church did this. Now we don’t have to do it PRECISELY the way they did it, because the Church has the authority (given her by Jesus Christ, btw) to govern her sacraments, BUT the Church has allowed this and her disciplines cannot be sacrelgious.
5. By reducing the sacredness of the priesthood and consecrated hands of the priest by encouraging every Tom, Dick or Harry or Harriette these days to handle the SACRED VESSLES and the BODY OF GOD INCARNATE. You should try to seperate the Pauline Mass from an abuse of the Pauline Mass.
6. By removing the holiness of the SANCTUARY where only those consecrated by God should have the privilege of enetring. Hmmm, so Father should be doing the dusting and the mopping around the altar? What about the altar servers? What about the altar society? My parish restricts access to the Sanctuary during the Mass and I myself try to not enter it for any light reason, but c’mon!
7. By Removing much of the SACRIFICIAL NATURE and PRAYERS and GESTURES of the traditional liturgy. The Pauline Mass is just as much a propitiatory Sacrifice as ever the TLM was. It has the essentials required by the Church (correct form, intent, and matter).
8. By ripping the Tabernacle from its throne. Shoving Jesus in a corner instead of being in the very centre of the Main Altar; as in EVERY other Rite of the Church. Hate to break it to you, but in great European cathedrals, the Lord Incarnate in the Consecrated Species was very often in a chapel, not on or in back of the main altar. This is not a new development, except in the mind of the historically challenged radical traditionalists who don’t believe that anything good happened before Trent.
9. Loss of the sense of the sacred and belief in the substancial pesence of Christ in the Eucharist. Could be blamed on a lot of things, but not the Pauline Mass.

That’s ENOUGH for now.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

wannabee:

That’s more than a bit pompous

This is not the place for a lesson in correct language usage

Not at all, it ample demonstration that the Cardinal may not have meant what he’s accused of meaning.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

wannabee:

That’s more than a bit pompous

This is not the place for a lesson in correct language usage

I’m afraid it *was *the place, as I was being informed that the cardinal had explicitly stated that no formal schism existed. The translation being quoted originally in the thread had no such explicit assertion. If theology is not the place for correct language usage, I’m really not sure what that place might be.

 

[tcraig]

No, it’s not an anti-TLM thread. You’re totally missing the point. It’s an anti-heresy thread. And it’s heresy to think the Novus Ordo Mass is intrinsically evil or sacrilegious! It’s perfectly ok to prefer the TLM, but it’s not ok to think the alternative is evil!

*I *did not say the the NO was intrinsically evil. I did state that I thought it was sacrilegious. My dictionary defines sacrilegious as “disrespectful toward something sacred: profane”. Profane is further defined as “not initiated into the mysteries of ritual; coarse: vulgar”. Vulgar: “spoken by or expressed in language used by the common people: vernacular; deficient in taste, delicacy, or refinement.” I could go on, but I think you get the general idea.

In none of those definitions do I define the NO Mass as illicit or unlawful, nor do I speak heresy. Heresy would be my dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma. Having a personal, subjective opinion that I think the NO Mass is sacrilegious does not even begin to enter that arena.

And while I hate to be picky, and online arguing isn’t “my thing”, I really dislike it that you chose to selectively quote a section of the Council of Trent; it’s like protestants pulling out select scripture quotes to support their particular argument. I mean, if you want to quote to me the 7th Canon, what about the 9th, where it states that mass in the “vulgar tongue” is an anathema?

I guess the part I just really don’t understand is why you (and others) feel the need to jump down the throats of those you define as “false traditionalists”. I certainly wouldn’t define them as cafeteria catholics. Cafeteria catholics pick and choose which doctrines of the faith they choose to accept; traditionalists (“false” or otherwise) generally just reject the novelties of VII.

 

[Catholic29]

pgoings:

I think there are any number of reasons why one could assume that the actions of Abp Lefebvre and the* consecrandi* indicated “schismatic disobedience.” However, it is perfectly clear in the Code that no penalty is incurred in such an instance if the person is acting in good faith, according to their conscience. Without mind reading it is simply impossible to determine this for certain. Thus it cannot be said definitively that the* latae sententiae* excommunication was incurred. The only way around this would have been a* ferendae sententiae* excommunication, and the Holy Father chose not to impose this.

And a note on terminology: Persons can commit the sin and crime of schism, not organizations. So the S.S.P.X. cannot be, by definition, schismatic. At worst one can say that it’s leaders are in schism and that they intend to promote schism through the Society. If we are to discuss canon law and its effects, let us make sure we have things as correct as possible.

Thats interesting,

If I wanted a lesson in Roman Catholic canon law, reason would dictate that I recieve that lesson from someone who is in Communion, being that you claim to be Anglican after my reading your public profile. As well as from someone who cites sources, such as the 1983 Code of Canon Law. It is apparent you don’t meet these criteria.

In any case there have been canon law arguments thrown out by SSPX advocates in all directions to justify their position, but this 1988 Apostolic Letter by John Paul II is the last word from legitimate Church authority in my opinion.

 

[DavidJoseph]

tcraig:

*I *did not say the the NO was intrinsically evil. I did state that I thought it was sacrilegious. My dictionary defines sacrilegious as “disrespectful toward something sacred: profane”. Profane is further defined as “not initiated into the mysteries of ritual; coarse: vulgar”. Vulgar: “spoken by or expressed in language used by the common people: vernacular; deficient in taste, delicacy, or refinement.” I could go on, but I think you get the general idea.

“Sacrilegious” is still a loaded term. Besides, no approved rite of the Church can be intrinsically sacrilegious, as I’ve said earlier. Please reread that section of Trent I quoted.

In none of those definitions do I define the NO Mass as illicit or unlawful, nor do I speak heresy. Heresy would be my dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma. Having a personal, subjective opinion that I think the NO Mass is sacrilegious does not even begin to enter that arena.

Yes you do indeed speak heresy. It’s Church doctrine that it’s impossible for the Church to promote a sacrilegious rite. If it’s an approved rite, then by nature it’s holy.

You know, one can have a subjective opinion that contraception is ok or that homosexual activity is ok. But it still places them outside the Church, as by holding such opinions they deny Church doctrine.

And while I hate to be picky, and online arguing isn’t “my thing”, I really dislike it that you chose to selectively quote a section of the Council of Trent; it’s like protestants pulling out select scripture quotes to support their particular argument. I mean, if you want to quote to me the 7th Canon, what about the 9th, where it states that mass in the “vulgar tongue” is an anathema?

The 9th canon refers to a DISCIPLINE. The 7th canon refers to a DOCTRINE. The one can be changed; the other cannot. Trent often used such language in referring to Church disciplines as well as doctrines, and so did other ecumenical councils, I think. But even so, we’re still required to OBEY disciplines until or unless they’re rescinded.

I guess the part I just really don’t understand is why you (and others) feel the need to jump down the throats of those you define as “false traditionalists”. I certainly wouldn’t define them as cafeteria catholics. Cafeteria catholics pick and choose which doctrines of the faith they choose to accept; traditionalists (“false” or otherwise) generally just reject the novelties of VII.

Fraternal correction and warning to others, that’s why. Those who are doing or believing things that could send them to hell need their errors exposed and corrected – both for their own sake and the sake of those who might be impressionable enough to fall into those same errors. And false traditionalists do indeed deny Church doctrines. Ecumenism, for one (failing to distinguish between true and false ecumenism and thinking all ecumenism is bad and false). And also the doctrine saying that no approved rite of Mass can be intrinsically sacrilegious. Neither doctrine is a novelty. Other “novelties” of Vatican II may just be disciplines, but as I just said, we still have to obey them. Other ecumenical councils made it clear that even disciplines have to be obeyed, and Vatican II said so too.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

tcraig:

*I *did not say the the NO was intrinsically evil. I did state that I thought it was sacrilegious. My dictionary defines sacrilegious as “disrespectful toward something sacred: profane”. Profane is further defined as “not initiated into the mysteries of ritual; coarse: vulgar”. Vulgar: “spoken by or expressed in language used by the common people: vernacular; deficient in taste, delicacy, or refinement.” I could go on, but I think you get the general idea.
And you’re still speaking heresy. The Council of Trent stated that the Church was not able to present to the Church a defective Mass, which HAS to mean, has to include, that it cannot present anything sacreligious. The Mass, in and of its nature, cannot be “disrespectful toward somethingsacred.” Further, it cannot BE profane! It can be PROFANED. There’s a difference.

In none of those definitions do I define the NO Mass as illicit or unlawful, nor do I speak heresy. Heresy would be my dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma. Having a personal, subjective opinion that I think the NO Mass is sacrilegious does not even begin to enter that arena. Yes, it does, see above, it’s one of the “biggies” in terms of Catholic doctrine (ie, it’s for the protitiation of our sins and the salvation of our souls).

And while I hate to be picky, and online arguing isn’t “my thing”, I really dislike it that you chose to selectively quote a section of the Council of Trent; it’s like protestants pulling out select scripture quotes to support their particular argument. I mean, if you want to quote to me the 7th Canon, what about the 9th, where it states that mass in the “vulgar tongue” is an anathema? **Quote it in full. Does it say that mass in the vulgar tongue is anathema or does it say that to say that mass MUST be in the vulgar tongue is anathema? My understanding is that the Council simply said that it did not seem to be the time for the mass to be in the vulgar tongue. **

I guess the part I just really don’t understand is why you (and others) feel the need to jump down the throats of those you define as “false traditionalists”. I certainly wouldn’t define them as cafeteria catholics. Cafeteria catholics pick and choose which doctrines of the faith they choose to accept; traditionalists (“false” or otherwise) generally just reject the novelties of VII.

They’re not Catholics at all in my opinion, since to be Catholic is to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome.