E
EnchantedEve
Guest
Take a breath everybody, I think we are getting a little heated. Remember we are all Catholics here who love our Faith, and that is why we are getting passionate. Let us not lose sight of that. 
- Status
I
I_Believe
Guest
The Novus Ordo Mass, on paper, as printed in the missal ? No. I donāt see anything in it that is not Catholic. I see no heresy, and I do see quite a bit of Doctrine.
Considering what the NO Mass enables however, I have to honestly say I would like to see it phased out.
Here is what turned out to be an excellent thread on the matterā¦
catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=710fb304f977c6ef507559c6dadc3ba7&topic=2917161.0
Iām the OP.
J
JustaServant
Guest
Thanks for the answer. If the answer had been yes it would have opened up a different can of worms I do not think many traditional Catholics could really defend. Nevertheless, I do hear many who call themselves traditional Catholics not only give an affirmative to that question, but go much further down the road.
Thanks again.
J
JustaServant
Guest
Internet forums by their very nature can become like a Three Stooges short. The moderators are the referees who make sure there isnāt too much slapping, nose turning. and eye-poking.Take a breath everybody, I think we are getting a little heated. Remember we are all Catholics here who love our Faith, and that is why we are getting passionate. Let us not lose sight of that.
J
Jacafamala
Guest
J
JustaServant
Guest
If it is then not heretical, why do some continue to attend a Mass that is part of a society in rebellion against the Church? If there were a FSSP or IOCTK affiliated church around me, I would probably attend because they are in communion with the Church. The SSPX is not in communion with the Church. That is not something that can easily be swept away.
Seriously, Iām not trying to pick a fight. Obedience to authority is something that cannot be dodged. The foundation of Protestantism is rejection of authority. Priests who are suspended, and keep saying the Mass are in rebellion just like Protestants.
I have spent the last few months studying this whole issue with an open mind. I will repeat what I said before, truth is on the side of tradition and the SSPX.
Butā¦
obediance to authority is the 800 pound gorilla in the room.
T
Timothysis
Guest
Isnāt it interesting to see just how many new steps that have been created to dance around this issue, and yet not one poster has given anything but excuses as to why they think itās ok to attend these illicit Massesā¦
S
Sir_Alec
Guest
Because there are certain dioceses where the official diocesan Masses are irreverent and border on sacrilege.Isnāt it interesting to see just how many new steps that have been created to dance around this issue, and yet not one poster has given anything but excuses as to why they think itās ok to attend these illicit Massesā¦
Tim, can you give a reason to attend a Mass where the Body of Christ is treated like a cookie, or when illicit or invalid matter is used?
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
hee, hee.Internet forums by their very nature can become like a Three Stooges short. The moderators are the referees who make sure there isnāt too much slapping, nose turning. and eye-poking.
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
Forgive me, but I though citing canon law, the saints, and historic precedent seemed like more than an āexcuse,ā unless your implying the saints only used excuses in their principles.Isnāt it interesting to see just how many new steps that have been created to dance around this issue, and yet not one poster has given anything but excuses as to why they think itās ok to attend these illicit Massesā¦
J
JustaServant
Guest
When I was a fundamentalist, I often would hear people rip instances and verses out of the Bible to justify their bad decisions. Thier examples proved why āscripture aloneā is a fallacy. Well, āLives of the Saints Aloneā is just as wrong.
If there is abuse in a diocese, there is a chain of command all the way to the Pope that is in place to deal with it. Thatās why Jesus set it up that way. He knew men are fallible and needed Apostolic Succession and Sacraments to keep us where we need to be.
Without that system, I might as well go back to being Baptist.
There is NEVER a reason, for a Catholic, to āgo it aloneā and start oneās own ācatholicā church. Obediance to authority is what makes us different than the Protestant. It does not mean I have to AGREE with the authority, I can even excercise my right to protest the authorityās decision, i.e. the Notre Dame situation.
But to start my own catholic church separate from THE Catholic church is saying Jesus must not have known what He was talking about when He said the āgates of Hellā would not prevail against the Church.
J
Jacafamala
Guest
Conservative Catholics can sometimes hold to some very naive ideology.
If your bishop asked you to jump off the Brooklyn bridge, would you?
Yeah, itāll be interesting to see how Rome deals with Notre Shame. How do you think things have gotten so bad in the first place? Do you think things have gotten the way they are because the bishops are all doing their jobs? No, the bishops are not all doing their jobs. Far from it. At least SSPX bishops are faithful to the traditional teachings of the Church.
If your bishop asked you to jump off the Brooklyn bridge, would you?
Yeah, itāll be interesting to see how Rome deals with Notre Shame. How do you think things have gotten so bad in the first place? Do you think things have gotten the way they are because the bishops are all doing their jobs? No, the bishops are not all doing their jobs. Far from it. At least SSPX bishops are faithful to the traditional teachings of the Church.
I
I_Believe
Guest
See ? Thatās the problem. Why do you folks keep stating āthe SSPX is not in communion with the Churchā ?
Thatās false. Cardinal Hoyos said the whole issue is an āinternal matterā. The document removing the excommunications calls the 4 ā¦Bishops.
Schismatic does not = āIn schismā.
Suspended priests does not = ānot in communionā
āInternal matterā does not = ānot in communionā or āin schismā.
The status of the SSPX clergy is irregular communion at this time. There are only two possibilities to change that. Formal schism or full communion.
Where are the threads demanding the liberal clergy who promote the ordination of women be excommunicated ? Where are the threads decrying heresy by a Cardinal who states the TLM does not instill the spirit of Chruch in those who assist it ? Who also has a spokesman who denies the indelible mark of Baptism ? Good grief, I donāt know of a single protestant that would hold that view, let alone a Cardinal of the Catholic Church.
Where are the threads condemning those Bishops who so freely ran their mouths, spewing venom, publicly, at our Holy Father for lifting the excommunications ? Some banded together and demanded he step down ! Are these clergy schismatic ? What gives them the right to question his authority and also spew their venom at those who defend Tradition ? Apostates ? Heretics ? Schismatics ? What category do they fall under ?
These clergy are not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome any more than the SSPX.
Tradition is the gorilla JustaServant. The fight has been going on since as early as the 4th century or even before.
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - St. Athanasius, AD 373
And at the Council itselfā¦
"In recent times, even in materialist North America, the growth of the Church was magnificent with the liturgy being kept in Latin. The attempts of the Protestants have failed, and Protestantism uses the vernacular. We ask again: Why the change, especially since changes in this matter involve many difficulties and great dangers? All of us here at the Council can recall the fundamental changes in the meaning of words in common use. Thus it follows that if the Sacred Liturgy were in the vernacular, the immutability of doctrine would be endangered.
The introduction of the vernacular should be separated from the action of the Mass. The Mass must remain as it is. Grave changes in the liturgy introduce grave changes in dogmata."
-James Cardinal McIntyre addressing the Second Vatican Council.
Every single fear the Cardinal expressed has materialized. Just as every concern mentioned in the indult allowing CITT has been ignored by the majority of parish pastors.
Are we to expect the SSPX to embrace this in the name of blind obedience ?
T
Timothysis
Guest
One cannot justify their bad behavior by pointing to the bad behavior of others.
Letās consider the following:
- The founder and leaders of the sspx were excommunicated (though the current bishops have had their excommunications lifted, they are still suspended from their priestly functions)
- The priests of the sspx are suspended of their duties
- The priests of the sspx lack the faculties to licitly celebrate the sacraments
- Masses said by the sspx are illicit under Canon law, meaning they are āillegal,ā or ānot allowedā
Now, if there is a diocesan Mass where āthe Body of Christ is treated like a cookieā then this should certainly be reported to the bishop and the Vatican itself if a satisfactory conclusion is not reached. This is the proper channels.
It is interesting that you ask about attending a Mass when āillicit or invalid matter is used.ā Why does the issue of something being āillicitā matter to you in a diocesan Mass, but is inconsequential when everything the sspx does is āillicit?ā
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
Heh, heh.When I was a fundamentalist, I often would hear people rip instances and verses out of the Bible to justify their bad decisions. Thier examples proved why āscripture aloneā is a fallacy. Well, āLives of the Saints Aloneā is just as wrong.
All kidding aside, I cite precedent and canon law not because we live on these alone, but many here are behaving as if not bowing and scraping and letting the bishops walk all over us is a virtue, and anyone who disagrees is a bad Catholic.
My point is if we have reservations regarding abuses of power, and in many cases outright denial of the Catholic Faith, and this makes us bad Catholics, than these saints before us were equally bad Catholics, and canon law was written as an academic excercise in joke telling, because if the Spirit of the Law is irrelevant, and only the letter matters, than the Pharisees really have won, and Christās words are really in vain.
Are not many of our bishops as whited sepluchers? Would not any of you here pull your donkey out of a ditch on Sabbath? I mean these figuratively, of course.
Again, as the 1917 Canon Law states, the spirit of the law is the salvation of souls. If we have reason to believe our New Mass parish endangers this because they do not follow the Church in all things, we have a duty to resist the descent into darkness, as the saints before us have done. The fact that their actions were sanctified by the Church is a sign that their adhering to a higher calling was a sign of their predilection before God. The bishop is called to faithfully proclaim the Gospel and it is this alone he has the authority to do. If he fails to do this, he is outside of the authority he has been given and need not be obeyed. I have already cite numerous quotes from saints and popes why this is the case. Bishops do not have carte blanche to do as they please.
And, the SSPX has not set up its own ācatholic church!ā It teaches all which we have received from the Church of all ages, it prays for the Holy Father una cum, it has no parallel hierarchy, where is this seperate ācatholic church?ā
Excellent post, I_Believe. The Pope and the hierarchy are not the Church. We follow them when they proclaim the Gospel, but when they proclaim another Gospel than that which we have received, how can we be faithful Catholics and confess falsehoods?
I
I_Believe
Guest
We canāt without being heretical.
Sadly, many laity donāt know better.
S
Sir_Alec
Guest
Instead of using the same tired arguments, why donāt you admit that the SSPX doesnāt exist in a vacuum, and Archbishop Lefevbre didnāt wake up one day and say āgee, I think Iāll be disobedient to the Pope today?ā The Society of St.Pius X was given full canonical recognition when it was founded in 1970. Priests from the Society were incardinated into several dioceses in both the United States and Europe. John Cardinal Wright praised the Seminary on several occassions, and recommended it to many young men because of the lack of orthodoxy in the major diocesan seminaries at the time.
The suppression of the Society came about not because of anything that Msgr. Lefevbre or his priests did, but because of the machinations of the French Bishops Conference, who were angry that the seminary in Econe was drawing vocations from their dioceses, and indeed, many dioceses from all over Europe. An argument can be made that the suppression of the Society in 1976 was illegal. It certainly violated natural justice. One of the pretexts of the suppression was that the Traditional Mass was abrogated-a fact that we now know to be false, thanks to Our Holy Fatherās courageous Motu Proprio.
The whole story is recounted in Michael Davies book APOLOGIA PRO MARCEL LEFEVBRE. Before you attack Davies as a āschismaticā, here is what our present Holy Father had to say about him when he passed away:
Davies book is completely documented with every document from both sides of the issue. Why not read it, and find out the facts for yourself?
You ask why I care about illicit matter if I am not bothered by the illicit Masses of the Society? Sounds awfully pharisiac to me, straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. The Masses of the SSPX are reverent, they have the correct matter, form and intention, and the Pope is prayed for in the Canon. A Mass with illicit or invalid matter would be a sacrilege-far worse than anything that happens in any SSPX Chapels.
You ask about going to the proper channels for the rectification of problems. Well, Archbishop Lefevbre did this. So have thousands of people since. The Vatican under Pope Paul and under Pope John Paul II seemed very reluctant to enforce any kind of discipline on wayward priests and prelates. Thankfully, Pope Benedict seems to be steering the Church in a different direction. When the new translation of the OF is released, with guidelines for proper celebration, it will be a day of rejoicing. Hopefully priests who disobey and donāt follow the rubrics will be disciplined for their actions.
For the record(and I mentioned this earlier in the thread):I donāt attend SSPX chapels, I donāt agree with every action they have taken, nor do I recommend people attend them when there are approved options(or reverent OF Masses) in their diocese. But they certainly donāt deserve the scorn and abuse that has been heaped upon them for the last thirty years. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was a great Missionary Prelate, and his apostolate in Northern Africa during the forties and fifties laid the groundwork for the reawakening of Catholicism on that continent. The people of Dakar and Gabon consider him a saint, and wonāt hear a word against him.
Thank God that Pope Benedict has lifted the excommunications, and hopefully there will be a full reconciliation in the near future. Though Iām sure even that wonāt satisfy some people.
T
Timothysis
Guest
Many on this forum would call this type of thinking moral relativism. It also seems to be an endorsement for the idea that the ends justify the means.
I think it interesting that you go completely outside of the circle to rationalize why the sspx is in good standing. All I can offer is the facts as they now stand; the sspx, their bishops and their priests are suspended of their duties. Any practice of the sacraments that they are involved in are acts of disobedience against the pope, the Church and canon law. If this situation is rectified one day, then great! But until then, we must abide by the laws of the Church. Apparently, you donāt have much regard for church law and that is your prerogative. For myself, I think that as a child must be obedient to his elders, priests and bishops should be obedient to their superiors (is that not part of the oath that they take upon ordination?). Good intentions are merit less if their end result are achieved through illicit actions.
S
Sir_Alec
Guest
You didnāt answer a single argument or point I made. Have a good day.
T
Timothysis
Guest
Your āargument or pointsā are nothing more than your own subjective, personal opinion. It is a fruitless endeavor to tackle āyeah, butā¦ā arguments.
- Status