FSSP and SSPX

[Shin]

"In discussing the value of the Mass, one must make a distinction between intrinsic and the extrinsic value. The intrinsic value of any valid Mass is infinite since It is Christ, Who is infinite, Who is offered. Hence, in this respect every Mass has an infinite value.4 The new rite of Mass is just as efficacious as the old rite of Mass in this respect since they are both the same sacrifice of Christ.5 The Mass, because it is the offering of God the Son to God the Father, gives infinite glory to God.6

However, the extrinsic value or merit of the Mass is finite.7 This is so because man, a finite creature, is incapable of receiving infinite effects. In this respect, the value of the Mass is “intensive limited,”8 which means that the fruit of the Mass is limited in its measure. Normally, the liturgical writers state that, as to its impetratory and expiatory value, the Mass is finite,9 “since the operations of propitiation and impetration refer to human beings, who as creatures can receive a finite act only.”10 When one considers the actual sacrifice of the Mass, which is the sacrifice of Calvary, it is infinite, but as to its effects, other than the infinite effect of giving God glory, it is finite.

In addition to man’s finitude, the liturgical writers give other reasons for the limitation of the extrinsic value of the Mass. While the Mass is infinite as to What is sacrificed, nevertheless we derive only finite fruits from the Mass. The writers say that the extrinsic merit of the Mass is based essentially upon six things. These six things are intermediaries between the infinite efficaciousness of the Mass and those who receive the actual effects from the Mass. . .

It is safe to say that, objectively speaking, with respect to the ritual itself the old rite of Mass has an ability to merit more than the new rite of Mass. While this merit is accidental, since the essential or intrinsic merit of the Mass, which is the Sacrifice of Christ, is the same in both rites, it is nevertheless something serious. Since the faithful are the beneficiaries of the fruits derived from this aspect of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we have a grave obligation to consider the impact that this factor may be having on the life of the Church. While it is not our intention to denigrate the new rite, we must recognize that the ritual of Mass used in the old rite is more meritorious and therefore more beneficial for the people who assist at it and for the priests who offer it. "

Full Article

 

[giuseppeTO]

I imagine that you were in the crypt, where the casket is right above the altar or were you in the main church, where the altar is right above the casket?

In the crypt. While vesting, the Brother Sacristan asked if Father was with the Society of St. Pius X, to which he answered in the affirmative. The Brother remarked “Bene”. We were treated very kindly and I believe this bodes well for both the church at large and the SSPX. Hopefully, we will start to see some of that congeniality in the U.S. also.

If you watch the Holy Father celebrate mass or our own Franciscans on EWTN, I don’t find anything irreverent about that mass and it’s in the Ordinary Form.

…nor have I, WYD excluded.

Don’t add motives that are not there. It was not purposely mistranslated. It was mistranslated in English only… The translation into the other Romance languages is perfectly consistent with the Latin.

Well, the U.S. is where I go to Mass and the fact that it was purposely mistranslated in English or any language is a problem. It has been properly translated into English for a century in Latin/English Missals so it was changed to advance somebody’s agenda. There most definitely was motive here.

I can’t explain that because I was not there. The rubrics say that you genuflect. I know priests who can’t do it, because they have conditions such as arthritis or because of age.

My point was that the genuflection at the moment of transubstantiation was dropped, and the second genuflection was a bow at the mass I attended.I would not have a problem with a priest who was unable to do it. We have an elderly priest at our chapel who can only manage a half-genuflection and it appears that even that is painful for him. However, if the rubric still exists for the second genuflection and this priest chose to bow, then that goes to my point about modern priestly formation around the Novus Ordo which allows for so many “choices” at the priests discretion that many of the rubrics have also become choices to be followed or changed at whim.

The point is that the sacrifice can neither be enhanced or diluted. There are many forms in the universal Church. In fact, there are over ten forms of celebrating the mass and they don’t all do the same thing.

Understood. My point was the motive by which we changed. I understand that there will always be legacy forms as there were prior to 1960. I disagree that the sacrifice cannot be enhanced or diluted. I do agree that the sacrament is either valid or invalid and there is no intermediate or less efficacious state. However, the sacrificial aspect of the entire Mass can be diluted, and I believe that the new form does this, by de-emphasizing the sacrificial nature in favor of the Pascal meal. This was accomplished through the alteration/deletion of prayers, particularly the very common short form of the Novus ordo Canon, and the elimination of the use of words like “oblation”, which Luther hated and remarked “…the Mass (canon) stinks of oblation…” Obviously, those references had to go to make the New Mass universally acceptable.

On the above point the laity is going to have to yield to religious superiors. Some orders do not want our priests to be noticed by the laity. Nor do we want them being called Father or being distinct form any other friar.

This is understandable and, IMHO, an appropriate position for the Franciscans to determine for themselves. In my sister’s parish, the 65 year old pastor (Fr. Richard Doyle) is called Rick and Ricky by parishioners and when he calls on the phone, the messages he leaves are from “Rick”. That is what happens when laity and religious become chummy and it denigrades the priesthood, no doubt about it. Your situation is not the same.

In my community were simply commanded to put distance between us and any position that is contrary to the Holy Father’s position regarding this matter under penalty of suffering what some of us call “the curse of St. Francis.”

Again, for a religious community, I believe that is probably appropriate. It is more a matter for your superior general.

 

[distracted]

"In discussing the value of the Mass, one must make a distinction between intrinsic and the extrinsic value. The intrinsic value of any valid Mass is infinite since It is Christ, Who is infinite, Who is offered. Hence, in this respect every Mass has an infinite value.4 The new rite of Mass is just as efficacious as the old rite of Mass in this respect since they are both the same sacrifice of Christ.5 The Mass, because it is the offering of God the Son to God the Father, gives infinite glory to God.6

However, the extrinsic value or merit of the Mass is finite.7 This is so because man, a finite creature, is incapable of receiving infinite effects. In this respect, the value of the Mass is “intensive limited,”8 which means that the fruit of the Mass is limited in its measure. Normally, the liturgical writers state that, as to its impetratory and expiatory value, the Mass is finite,9 “since the operations of propitiation and impetration refer to human beings, who as creatures can receive a finite act only.”10 When one considers the actual sacrifice of the Mass, which is the sacrifice of Calvary, it is infinite, but as to its effects, other than the infinite effect of giving God glory, it is finite.

In addition to man’s finitude, the liturgical writers give other reasons for the limitation of the extrinsic value of the Mass. While the Mass is infinite as to What is sacrificed, nevertheless we derive only finite fruits from the Mass. The writers say that the extrinsic merit of the Mass is based essentially upon six things. These six things are intermediaries between the infinite efficaciousness of the Mass and those who receive the actual effects from the Mass. . .

It is safe to say that, objectively speaking, with respect to the ritual itself the old rite of Mass has an ability to merit more than the new rite of Mass. While this merit is accidental, since the essential or intrinsic merit of the Mass, which is the Sacrifice of Christ, is the same in both rites, it is nevertheless something serious. Since the faithful are the beneficiaries of the fruits derived from this aspect of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we have a grave obligation to consider the impact that this factor may be having on the life of the Church. While it is not our intention to denigrate the new rite, we must recognize that the ritual of Mass used in the old rite is more meritorious and therefore more beneficial for the people who assist at it and for the priests who offer it. "

Full Article

haven’t read the last sentence/paragrph cuz kinda got to “stumbling” on what went b4 it… .

how can you call the Mass finite when it does infinite things… like… it gets people on their way to heaven, which is infinite…

Masses offered for the dead get them out of Purgatory and into Heaven faster… infinite…

The Mass causes people to focus on infinite truths…

have no idea why it is called finite…

whether it ends up in Hell or Heaven, the soul is infinite…

 

[Shin]

whether it ends up in Hell or Heaven, the soul is infinite…

I think it is worded perhaps best that…

We do not have an infinite capacity, we are finite beings. We have a beginning. We have limits in our abilities. We have limits to our deeds. We have limits to our worthiness to receive graces.

It is God who is infinite.

How to deal with the interaction of God and man and put it properly, I’m not sure.

But you should read the entire article if you wish to clarify the matter. It goes into the different ways in which merit is gained from the mass.

 

[distracted]

I think it is worded perhaps best that…

We do not have an infinite capacity, we are finite beings. We have a beginning. We have limits in our abilities. We have limits to our deeds. We have limits to our worthiness to receive graces.

It is God who is infinite.

.

we are as “infinite” as we desire to be… In other words, we can have as much of God as we choose to have… sin is the only thing that limits us in our capacity to experience Him…

If you don’t sin (try not to wholeheartedly) you will be able to relate better to this infinite God… etc…