I
iamanea
Guest
Hello:
I am a mainstream Catholic and wish to ask a question of a member of the SSPX society about why they view the “Novus Ordo” invalid.
My ex wife and three of my children are members of the society and I am trying to understand their position. I have serious questions as to the validity of the society’s sacraments which causes concern over their salvation.
Some background is in order. I used to attend a private Tridentine Mass with my parents while in High School. A tremendous scandal broke out in the parish which convinced my parents to return to the mainstream church in obedience to our local bishop who did not recognize the legitimacy of our attending church at the Tridentine parish. My first wife was very traditional and left the mainstream church when Archbishop Le Febvre left in the eighties - after our divorce. I have asked this question on another site that had a large number of members of the society, but no one ever responded.
Based on my personal experience of what I was told by my ex and by my old Tridentine pastor (as a high school student) I understand that you believe that # 1. Vatican II and Pope Paul VI’s decision to institute the Novus Ordo mass is an abomination and not valid. # 2. Archbishop Lefebvre was correct to ignore Rome’s request to not consecrate bishops to carry on his movement after his death. #3. You feel only the Tridentine Mass is valid and a true mass - No other rite within the Catholic Church is valid.
Corry
I am a mainstream Catholic and wish to ask a question of a member of the SSPX society about why they view the “Novus Ordo” invalid.
My ex wife and three of my children are members of the society and I am trying to understand their position. I have serious questions as to the validity of the society’s sacraments which causes concern over their salvation.
Some background is in order. I used to attend a private Tridentine Mass with my parents while in High School. A tremendous scandal broke out in the parish which convinced my parents to return to the mainstream church in obedience to our local bishop who did not recognize the legitimacy of our attending church at the Tridentine parish. My first wife was very traditional and left the mainstream church when Archbishop Le Febvre left in the eighties - after our divorce. I have asked this question on another site that had a large number of members of the society, but no one ever responded.
Based on my personal experience of what I was told by my ex and by my old Tridentine pastor (as a high school student) I understand that you believe that # 1. Vatican II and Pope Paul VI’s decision to institute the Novus Ordo mass is an abomination and not valid. # 2. Archbishop Lefebvre was correct to ignore Rome’s request to not consecrate bishops to carry on his movement after his death. #3. You feel only the Tridentine Mass is valid and a true mass - No other rite within the Catholic Church is valid.
4. You say that you believe and follow the unchanging inerrant truth of the Magisterium which somehow the “NewChurch” (to use your term) has abandoned in some way.
I have studied Church History and the teaching of the Magisterium for over nine years, receiving a Bachelor’s Degree in Theology from Franciscan Univ. of Steubenville in 2001 and some 30 hours of Masters Level coursework in Scripture and Systematic Theology also from Franciscan. This study has led me to the following conclusions:1. I would agree with you that the Mass is central to the Catholic Faith.
#2. I would agree with you that Jesus, as God, cannot lie and that His promises must come to pass. In John 16:12 - 15, Mt 16:13 - 20, and several other places, Jesus promises to send the Holy Spirit to the Church Magisterium (present day pope and bishops of the world) and preserve it from error. Satan will not succeed in his attempts to destroy the Church. Based upon these promises of inerrancy by Jesus, the Magisterium has consistently taught that it is incapable of error on matters of faith and morals.3. This guarantee of inerrancy rests in the Pope alone, AND in the Bishops of the world gathered in UNION with the Pope. Whatever they define as true is inerrant, God’s truth and impossible of error. The Pope, by virtue of his position as sucessor to Peter and thus the head of the Church, is the ONLY individual official that enjoys that inerrancy in matters of faith and morals. No INDIVIDUAL bishop has that power. He participates in the inerrancy of the Magisterium ONLY in union with the Pope and the other bishops of the world, He, as an individual, is not inerrant in his teaching on truths not definitively defined. A Bishop has the authority to teach already defined doctrine, but as an individual, he is capable of making an error in that teaching as he may not correctly understand the Magisterium’s teaching.
4. If this is true, how can something so vital to the faith as the Mass be rendered invalid? Why wouldn’t the promises of Jesus to preserve the Church from error apply to something so fundamental to our faith as the Mass? Either Jesus is true to His word or He is not. As God, it is a denial of His nature to lie; therefore He has to be true to His word. This seems to mean that the Mass cannot be changed in a way that would render it invalid and an abomination.
5. If the Mass is NOT central to the faith, then it can be changed. Everything about the Mass is simply a small “t” tradition that can and has been changed throughout the Church’s history.
6. In fact the rite of the Mass - how it is said, the prayers, the language used, the cycle of scriputures said, the direction the priest faces when saying Mass etc. all have changed many times in the Church’s history. Even the missal used for the Tridentine Mass has changed at least twice since it was promulgated by Pope St. Pius V at the conclusion of Trent. The rite was changed in 1917 and again in 1962 (the Tridentine Mass I attended used, as I recall, the 1962 missal). Why were these changes valid and Paul VI’s changes implementing Vatican II further changes (beyond the 1962 missal) not?
7. What HAS NOT changed about the Mass is the Church’s understanding of WHAT THE MASS IS and WHAT THE MASS REPRESENTS - The sacrifice and re-enactment in an unbloody manner of Jesus to the Father through the actions and words of the priest. Why is this not enough?
8. What makes the changes in language, prayers, translation (Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Latin and the mass was originally said in Aramaic and Greek, not Latin) etc. instituted by Trent special?
9. Are the rites of our Eastern Catholic brothers (those who left the various Eastern Christian Churches to reunite with Rome at various times in the past)also invalid? If not, why can’t the Church change those rites but cannot change the Tridentine/Latin rite?
#10. I know you say that Pope St. Pius V ruled that the Tridentine mass could not be changed forever. How can a pope bind future popes when they enjoy the same promise of inerrancy, the same power and thus are of equal authority?11. Why was Vatican II accepted for 23 years by Archbishop Lefebvre until 1988 when HE entered schism with Rome, but it is largely viewed as an anti-council now? What caused the change?
12. A final question. Throughout the Church’s history it has been the actions of one, or a group of few men, that have left the Church. They felt Rome had left the true faith. They wanted to return to the Faith as taught by Jesus. Why are they wrong in their opinions and actions and Archbishop Lefebvre right? Under what authority, what guarantee of inerrancy did he act as he did? Why aren’t his actions in ignoring Rome the same and just as wrong as Luther’s and the other “Reformers (so called by their followers)” throughout the Church’s History? Aren’t you committing the same sin of scandal and disobedience to the Magisterium that you criticize the “New Church” leaders for not putting a stop to?
If any of my characterizations of your position incorrect or if any of my logic is faulty, I would like to know. Thank you.Corry