How to respond to traditionalist catholics about their attitude towards the new mass

[OSPX]

If you are so logical, dear friend, then how can you attend a ST. Pius the X-gathering?

I call you dear friend, because I am a fellow latin Mass attendee, but I am not as antagonistic about it all.

LeFevre (for whom I have been inspired now to pray after seeing that gorgeous angelic face) stepped outside the Church by his own actions. Any follower of his steps outside as well. Even if you are not a cedevacantist, or “holier than the pope” type, why go to the ST. Pius X-mass?

The teaching authority of the church and its power to distribute sacraments is directly from God so long as its actions come through the succession of Bishops. With Levbre that is broken.

It is not a “SSPX mass” or a “SSPX Gathering” as you called it. It is the Mass of All Time. Offered on the altar is the same Christ offered on any altar, and yes even on the Eastern Orthodox Altars.

Fidelty to the Pope is a very important and neccessary trait of any Catholic, but it is still a human discipline albeit divinely instituted. Our fidelty to God in the Eucharist is much higher than our obligation to the Pope. If there is no indult Latin Mass near you, and you find the NO as morally unacceptable…then you should be obliged to attend a SSPX mass.

 

[somename]

Good stuff Atreyu!!!

I also have “dreaded” a certain family mass obligation that take the form of the Life Teen mass (the priest acts like a taljk show host. ). I tried so hard each time to focus on Christ and to keep my thoughts pure that I actually had a mass “experience” that was as uplifting as the glories of the Tridentine rite.

but don’t you see, marcsababa, this is what EDIT traditionalists find so offensive about the NO: pizza Masses, polka Masses, clown Masses, the 10 min Mass, etc…and all those options! argh!..too much room for the celebrant to inject personal interpretation.

and what of this topic, in the first place…this notion that EDIT traditionalists are “them”, and we is “us”. Bombay is correct: It’s OK for lovers of the NO to say they’d never attend a TLM, but EDIT traditionalists are judgemental to suggest that they’d would never attend a NO.

I highly recommend The Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Klaus Gamber, Roman Catholic Books.

 

[bear06]

but don’t you see, marcsababa, this is what EDIT traditionalists find so offensive about the NO: pizza Masses, polka Masses, clown Masses, the 10 min Mass, etc…and all those options! argh!..too much room for the celebrant to inject personal interpretation.

and what of this topic, in the first place…this notion that EDIT traditionalists are “them”, and we is “us”. Bombay is correct: It’s OK for lovers of the NO to say they’d never attend a TLM, but EDIT traditionalists are judgemental to suggest that they’d would never attend a NO.

I highly recommend The Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Klaus Gamber, Roman Catholic Books.

Puleeze. Not every Novus Ordo Mass is like this. That’s like saying all TLM’s are sedevacantist.

Also, if you read the first post. It isn’t a matter of them and us. Marcsababa is a Traditionalist.

Also, in regards to Bombay’s statement, where was this said? Has anyone actually said here that they would never attend a TLM on any condition?! On the flip side, the OP has said that his brother has said that he wouldn’t attend a Novus Ordo even if he had no way to get to a TLM and there was a valid, Novus Ordo across the street. Why is it that the OP has to address both sides of the issue when he only has questions regarding one side? Why is it that you can’t address the OP’s questions on how to deal with people who say that and stop perceiving it as an attack on all Traditionalists? It would seem that some are trying to defend those who take that stance by pointing a finger a someone else and saying why should he get to say that but not the Traditionalist. They’re both wrong. Now can we address the OP’s questions?

 

[marcsababa]

If there is no indult Latin Mass near you, and you find the NO as morally unacceptable…then you should be obliged to attend a SSPX mass.

Really?

Obliged?

I don’t understand this debate about whether or not the SSPX are outside the Church or not. I think it must be my own ignorance, because very serious intelligent people write articles about this.

My simple take on it is: The past Pope wrote the following on the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:

In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)) saying how upset he was by Levebre’s actions in ordaining bishops and that by his actions, he and especially the bishops he ordained are outside the church.

If the bishops were not ordained inside the Church then they must be outside the Church. SO any priest ordained from that line of bishops is outside the CHURCH. So any sacraments administered by priests outside the Church are not valid.

Dr. Bombay is that logical?

 

[AlexV]

You’re quite wrong.

Except for the difficult juridical cases of Penance and Matrimony, which require jurisdiction, SSPX SACRAMENTS ARE VALID (whether some like it or not).

Further, the SSPX situation is an internal problem of the Catholic CHURCH. They are not “outside the Church”.

They are, perhaps, not in perfect or full communion with the Church. But they most certainly “inside the Church”.

 

[pnewton]

They are not “outside the Church”.

They are, perhaps, not in perfect or full communion with the Church. But they most certainly “inside the Church”.

Full communion with Rome is what defines being inside the Catholic Church. Since the SSPX is not in full communion, they are outside the Catholic Church, even though they retain all valid sacraments. The situation is parallel to valid priest and bishops that break away to promote gay or women’s ordination. The original priest and bishops retain valid orders, and could still return to union with Rome, which they recognize as having the legitimate papacy.

Their arguements for legitimacy is as strong as the SSPX.

 

[AlexV]

Sorry, not true.

Even an excommunicated person is “in the Church”. Baptism defines who is “in the Church”.

A person in mortal sin is still “in the Church”. So is a heretic, a schismatic…once in the Church, always in the Church.

But, of course, communion with the Church can be imperfect.

 

[pnewton]

Sorry, not true.

Even an excommunicated person is “in the Church”. Baptism defines who is “in the Church”.

A person in mortal sin is still “in the Church”. So is a heretic, a schismatic…once in the Church, always in the Church.

But, of course, communion with the Church can be imperfect.

I see. I misunderstood your use of the words “inside” and “Church”. Yes, all baptized persons are considered part of the Church through virtue of their baptism. From #1271 of the CCC

**

1271

Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."81 "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."82**

 

[Atreyu]

It is not a “SSPX mass” or a “SSPX Gathering” as you called it. It is the Mass of All Time. Offered on the altar is the same Christ offered on any altar, and yes even on the Eastern Orthodox Altars.

Even on the Eastern Orthodox altars… So kind of you to concede that point to our most venerable Eastern brethren.

Fidelty to the Pope is a very important and neccessary trait of any Catholic, but it is still a human discipline albeit divinely instituted. Our fidelty to God in the Eucharist is much higher than our obligation to the Pope. If there is no indult Latin Mass near you, and you find the NO as morally unacceptable…then you should be obliged to attend a SSPX mass.

How could a Catholic possibly find the Pauline mass as morally unacceptable?! Even with abuses - so long as there is a valid Eucharist?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Yes, but they still need to be interrogated as to their feelings toward the novus ordo. Because, after all, it is the Mass the Pope says. And we can’t have Catholics questioning anything the Pope does. That wouldn’t be proper.

It isn’t mere “questioning,” though, Doc. It’s a constant harping on the question, a sowing of dis-ease and discontent, a constant nagging at a Rite that can be and USUALLY is celebrated with dignity and devotion, and a constant questioning of papal authority (and further, the acusation of “papalolotry” against those who defend the authority of the Petrine office). When we make the statement that the Pope has the legitimate authority to regulate the forms that cloak the Holy Sacrifice, we’re asked scornful and irrelevent questions about potential jumping jacks in the middle of the Consecration!

People ask questions here all the time, it’s the function of the forums.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You’re quite wrong.

Except for the difficult juridical cases of Penance and Matrimony, which require jurisdiction, SSPX SACRAMENTS ARE VALID (whether some like it or not).

Further, the SSPX situation is an internal problem of the Catholic CHURCH. They are not “outside the Church”.

They are, perhaps, not in perfect or full communion with the Church. But they most certainly “inside the Church”.

Their PRIESTS aren’t excommunicated (at least outside of Lincoln, Nebraska, where those excommunications have been allowed to stand by the Holy See), but their bishops certainly ARE.

 

[Dropper]

Puleeze. Not every Novus Ordo Mass is like this. That’s like saying all TLM’s are sedevacantist.

But I submit to you that most of the NOs that I have been to have been like those. The priests adlib the consecration, they walk into the nave during the Mass, they splash Holy Water all over the place with a wave of their hands (just Asperges right???), they openly profess support for contraception and abortion from the pulpit.

I know that not all NOs are like the ones I described or worse, but we shouldn’t have to go searching for a “good” NO. We shouldn’t have to parish hop to find a place that is loyal to the Church. We should be able to go to our nearest parish and see the Church inside, but I can’t do it and so many other Catholics are in the same boat.

That’s the reason for the growth of the FSSP, ICKSP, and even the SSPX. People find the Church there, they don’t find a polka Mass or a jazz Mass or a clown Mass. They find the Mass.

Catholics have to fight tooth and nail for what is their birthright when others have a jazz Mass just down the street with full episcopal approval (this is a personal experience)…

The Church is and has been in a sorry state. I think that our current Pontiff sees this and is making some changes for the better. I just urge all of you to pray for His Holiness that he be strong in the face of opposition…

Oh and pray for all those Catholics who aren’t even lucky enough to have a NO that is properly celebrated…

 

[AndyF]

marcsababa:

Personally, they wouldn’t like what I say either. I think all masses should be said in Aramaic. (n fact the closest we can get to a shoo-in for a catacomb celebration, the better!, …just kidding.). Seriously, the very idea that a word echoed is the very same that Jesus himself stated, is thrilling to me. The latin masses were beautiful ones, and the language is so soft and classical romantic in it’s way, with the words rolling from the tongue, and to think some Apostles spoke it as well, wow. I don’t have a clue on how to speak or understand it except of a few short liturgical phrases as most know. My sisters learned it while attending Catholic high schools in the 50’s, a must back then, and is still taught at the higher prestigious universties and private schools. I’m all for bringing it back.

All one needs to do is to have a small booklet with the translation of the liturgy of the mass, as well as the Missal. Voila, no problem. In fact some are still around from those days and could be got at garage sales for pennies in Catholic districts. Can’t see what the fuss is all about. I’ve attended Polish masses, French and I think once, a German.

AndyF

 

[bear06]

I know that not all NOs are like the ones I described or worse, but we shouldn’t have to go searching for a “good” NO. We shouldn’t have to parish hop to find a place that is loyal to the Church. We should be able to go to our nearest parish and see the Church inside, but I can’t do it and so many other Catholics are in the same boat.

I can agree with you here. That said, how do we achieve a proper Novus Ordo. Is it by promoting the Tridentine and deriding the Novus Ordo that was called for in Vatican II? I despise the way some priests abuse the Mass but I fight for what was called for and thankfully, do to that activist effort in our diocese, we find ourselves with a bishop who is transforming things. Yes it’s a slower process than I’d like but it’s amazing to find that priests are actually being obedient to him.

That’s the reason for the growth of the FSSP, ICKSP, and even the SSPX. People find the Church there, they don’t find a polka Mass or a jazz Mass or a clown Mass. They find the Mass.

I can agree with this too except for the fact that we have more orthodox, reverent Novus Ordos in our diocese than we have Tridentines. The call for them here simply isn’t that great because we do have great Novus Ordos. And quite simply, some people are just attracted to the TLM. I have been exposed to an Adoremus type Novus Ordo and the TLM and I prefer the Novus Ordo.

Catholics have to fight tooth and nail for what is their birthright when others have a jazz Mass just down the street with full episcopal approval (this is a personal experience)…

I’m thinking that baptimal right is a better word.

Oh and pray for all those Catholics who aren’t even lucky enough to have a NO that is properly celebrated…

 

[bear06]

Their PRIESTS aren’t excommunicated

Actually, we have no way of knowing this because we don’t know who’s formally adhered to the schism and who has not.

From Ecclesia Dei:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement.

Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.(8)

and from the Excommunication Decree:

sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id57.html

The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur ipso facto the very grave penalty of excommunication.

It’s pretty darn hard to argue that the priests don’t support the schism. Of course, there were a few that definitley didn’t and we have the FSSP.

 

[palmas85]

Even on the Eastern Orthodox altars… So kind of you to concede that point to our most venerable Eastern brethren.

How could a Catholic possibly find the Pauline mass as morally unacceptable?! Even with abuses - so long as there is a valid Eucharist?

Having had the opportunity to attend Masses, Pauline, mind you, where the consecration was done by either a nun or an illegal immigrant wearing a hood, probably to conceal his identity, I can tell you that yes, there are Pauline Masses that are certainly completely unacceptable and do not in any sense of the word have a valid Eucharist. You see that is the main problem as I see it with the Pauline Rite.

You never really know what you are going to get. It may be supremely reverent, I had the distinct pleasure and honor to attend some of them during my recent trip to New Orleans at Old St. Patricks Church:thumbsup: :thumbsup:They were reverent, beautifully done and adhered to the rubrics. If more Pauline Masses were like them, you would not have lot of these discussions on this forum…

On the other hand, you could just as easily have a female priest saying Mass because the Parish Priest believes in equality and female ordination or you could have a Mass where everyone is invited to ring the altar and say the consecration together, or have poppy seed bagels used for the Host, all of which I’ve personally seen in San Diego in the past year.

 

[chotock]

Having had the opportunity to attend Masses, Pauline, mind you, where the consecration was done by either a nun or an illegal immigrant wearing a hood, probably to conceal his identity, I can tell you that yes, there are Pauline Masses that are certainly completely unacceptable and do not in any sense of the word have a valid Eucharist. You see that is the main problem as I see it with the Pauline Rite.

You never really know what you are going to get. It may be supremely reverent, I had the distinct pleasure and honor to attend some of them during my recent trip to New Orleans at Old St. Patricks Church:thumbsup: :thumbsup:They were reverent, beautifully done and adhered to the rubrics. If more Pauline Masses were like them, you would not have lot of these discussions on this forum…

On the other hand, you could just as easily have a female priest saying Mass because the Parish Priest believes in equality and female ordination or you could have a Mass where everyone is invited to ring the altar and say the consecration together, or have poppy seed bagels used for the Host, all of which I’ve personally seen in San Diego in the past year.

Just as you could easily have a female priestess saying the TLM. The Rite does not exclude abuses, proper adherence to the rubrics does. We could be experiencing just as many abuses under the TLM now as we do the Pauline Mass with the way individuals have decided to make their own rules. It is not the fault of the Liturgy.

 

[marcsababa]

You’re quite wrong.

Except for the difficult juridical cases of Penance and Matrimony, which require jurisdiction, SSPX SACRAMENTS ARE VALID (whether some like it or not).

Further, the SSPX situation is an internal problem of the Catholic CHURCH. They are not “outside the Church”.

They are, perhaps, not in perfect or full communion with the Church. But they most certainly “inside the Church”.

I do not dislike the SSPX. If they were in line with the Pope then I would have no qualms about attending their mass. In fact I suppose I would have to say I “like” them in a way because of what I have today thanks to the priests who left Lefevbre (sp?) (at the time when he did the deed that provoked the response from the Pope in the letter that I quoted from and that you did not address.)

Those priests who loved the latin mass, bur loved the Church more went to the Pope. You may know more of the details, but I am sure you are aware that the FSSP was established by the Pope to provide the TLM within the Church.

So I don’t think you need to be all that defensive about people liking or disliking the SSPX.

In response to my remarks all you said is: “YOU ARE WRONG”

I provided a clear simple argument. In order to show me where I am wrong please address any of the points I listed and show me what is wrong in my reasoning. Please I do want know.

 

[palmas85]

Just as you could easily have a female priestess saying the TLM. The Rite does not exclude abuses, proper adherence to the rubrics does. We could be experiencing just as many abuses under the TLM now as we do the Pauline Mass with the way individuals have decided to make their own rules. It is not the fault of the Liturgy.

I never said it was the fault of the Liturgy. It is the fault of those who allow these things to happen. Those who add and subtract from the Mass, those who innovate and insert new things in an attempt to make worship more relevant to them.Just like our old friends Luther Wycliff and Huss did.

On a side note though, I do somehow doubt that you will find a female celebrating the Traditional Mass, but you do have them celebrating the Pauline, this after having been ordained by Bishops sympathetic to their cause.

 

[marcsababa]

It isn’t mere “questioning,” though, Doc. It’s a constant harping on the question, a sowing of dis-ease and discontent, a constant nagging at a Rite that can be and USUALLY is celebrated with dignity and devotion, and a constant questioning of papal authority (and further, the acusation of “papalolotry” against those who defend the authority of the Petrine office). When we make the statement that the Pope has the legitimate authority to regulate the forms that cloak the Holy Sacrifice, we’re asked scornful and irrelevent questions about potential jumping jacks in the middle of the Consecration!

People ask questions here all the time, it’s the function of the forums.

Just got to say: Very nicely written. Now on that note I will go and be inspired to write my finishing chapter.

Though I don’t know what my supervisor will say if I write about the assumptions that cloak the estimators of the model I am regressing.