Latin Mass Invalid???

[deogratias]

JCB:

What do you think of the FSSP or indult Mass today ? Again, as you know these are a direct result of the action of Archbishop Levebvre. Perhaps this is a case where dissent has or will improve the Church ?

That is not quite accurate…

Although Archbishop Lefebvre put his signature of approval to the Council documents, he later recanted this support. The Archbishop feared that the Church was in spiritual free fall, and something had to be done.

The Archbishop decided to found a priestly Society which would preserve the Latin liturgy and the traditional customs of the Church in force before Vatican II. The seminary to train these priests would be located in Econe, Switzerland, and by 1970 he had everything in place. Thus was born the priestly Society of St. Pius X.

So, the Archbishop had a seminary, he had students who gladly followed him, and he got permission from the Vatican congregation which deals with starting up new religious orders–not a difficult feat for him when you take into account all the connections he had as a former superior of a large, missionary order.

There was no dissent, just permission, the same permission now granted to the FFSP and would have been to the SSPX had they continued to comply with the Vatican.

What went wrong? The Vatican found that Lefebvre and his priests teaching at Econe were teaching that Vatican II was all wrong (just as they do today). This was not in keeping with loyalty to the Holy See and there was a formal investigation of the seminary and its teachins. The archbishop was uncooperative and so Pope Paul VI himself had to intervene and ordered the Archbishop not to ordain the first ordination class of 1975.

As you know Lefebvre ordained his seminarians anyway, and Pope Paul VI suspended him from the sacred ministry and declared that the Society no longer had legal standing as an official, religious order of the Church.

In 1988, in further disobedience, the Archbishop ordained four bishops without the Pope’s approval, which in the 1917 and the 1983 Code of Canon law, carried the penalty of automatic excommunication.

In 1988, Pope John Paul II stated in Ecclesia Dei Afflicta (“God’s Afflicted Church”) that the Archbishop and his co-consecrating bishops, and the four priests who were ordained bishops, had all incurred excommunication for the grave crime of episcopal ordination without papal mandate.

Ordaining bishops without Rome’s approval is a direct attack upon the papal primacy and the authority which the Pope must have to hold the Church together in unity. Obedience once again is not to be taken lightly by the Church leaders.

In the same decree, the Pope declared as well that the priests of the SSPX were in true schism, as were those lay people who attended their chapels. Pope John Paul also made a direct appeal to withdraw all support from the SSPX, and warned that those who remained with the SSPX would incur excommunication.

So yes the FFSP was offered to those SSPX priests who wished to remain in harmony with Rome - the same provisions that were offered to LeFebvre but which he disobeyed.

So it is a little misleading to say dissent caused the Indult because there would be no need for an Indult or the organization had the SSPX kept their covenants with Rome in the first place - they could have enjoyed the same status as the FFSP and Christ the King now has and still could if they would but acknowledge the validity of the N.O. Mass and Vatican II.

 

[Marie]

deogratias:

That is not quite accurate…

So it is a little misleading to say dissent caused the Indult because there would be no need for an Indult or the organization had the SSPX kept their covenants with Rome in the first place - they could have enjoyed the same status as the FFSP and Christ the King now has and still could if they would but acknowledge the validity of the N.O. Mass and Vatican II.

I could not have put it better me ole Catholic self.

 

[JCB]

deogratias:

…
So it is a little misleading to say dissent caused the Indult because there would be no need for an Indult or the organization had the SSPX kept their covenants with Rome in the first place - they could have enjoyed the same status as the FFSP and Christ the King now has and still could if they would but acknowledge the validity of the N.O. Mass and Vatican II.

Your point is well put and understood. :yup: However, Archbishop Lefebvre did oppose some of the teachings of VII from the beginning. We can say if he did not dispute these teaching then the TLM would probably be gone by now. If by dissent we mean oppose or differ then yes there was a dissent and so, the question is, is it possible for dissent to lead to a better church ? It seems in this case the answer is yes. So then again, there is good dissent and bad dissent. Knowing the difference is the complicated part.

 

[Marie]

JCB:

Your point is well put and understood. :yup: However, Archbishop Lefebvre did oppose some of the teachings of VII from the beginning. We can say if he did not dispute these teaching then the TLM would probably be gone by now. If by dissent we mean oppose or differ then yes there was a dissent and so, the question is, is it possible for dissent to lead to a better church ? It seems in this case the answer is yes. So then again, there is good dissent and bad dissent. Knowing the difference is the complicated part.

Yep! It is complicated but then again it’s simple. Joe Six Pack in the pew needs to sober up and attend to his soul and his spirituality and let Holy Mother Church handle the rest of it.

 

[deogratias]

We can say if he did not dispute these teaching then the TLM would probably be gone by now

No that is not what I posted - if he had not disputed the teachings of Vatican II and obeyed the Holy See, probably all the priests and chapels that are FFSP and SSPX would be thriving within the Church together as would the TLM along with the NOM.

However, Archbishop Lefebvre did oppose some of the teachings of VII from the beginning

Then why did he put his signature of approval on the documents in the beginning???

 

[JCB]

deogratias:

No that is not what I posted - if he had not disputed the teachings of Vatican II and obeyed the Holy See, probably all the priests and chapels that are FFSP and SSPX would be thriving within the Church together as would the TLM along with the NOM.

Of course this is conjecture. The opposite could be true as well. The fact is we will never know.

deogratias:

Then why did he put his signature of approval on the documents in the beginning???

Again, we will never know.

 

[JCB]

Marie:

Yep! It is complicated but then again it’s simple. Joe Six Pack in the pew needs to sober up and attend to his soul and his spirituality and let Holy Mother Church handle the rest of it.

I agree

 

[RBushlow]

stretch:

A priest at my son’s high school told him that a Latin Rite Mass offered at a local church was not a valid Masss for anyone not raised in the “old way”, by which I take he meant pre Vatican II. Has anyone heard such a thing? Is there some reason he would want to discourage high school students from attending a Latin Mass?

Actually, the official version of the the NO Mass is in Latin. All others are permitted to be said partially in the vernacular.

 

[Iohannes]

No insult, but the current indult situation stinks from my own experience, There is a parish where the bishop just cancelled the Traditional Latin Mass despite the strong demand(1600+ signatures) and plenty of priest who are willing to celebrate that Mass. Now the bishop just ignores the Traditional faithful who desires the legit Traditional Latin Mass and not have to attend a independent Chapel.

An Apostolic Administration would be a better solution, and protect the Traditional Mass from Hostile bishops like +Mahoney and +Brown.

But unfortunately, the SSPX refused an apostolic administration which is a lot better than the current indult system.

Had Rome offfered more and Archbishop Lefebvre been more obiedent, there would not be this mess today.

I believe that if Archbishop Lefebvre was alive today, he would accept an apostolic administration, just like Campos in Brazil.

Another interesting thing to note about Campos with its past strong ties to the SSPX. Campos did not have to recant, rehear confession, convailidate marriages, and receive stripends for the “illicit” Masses during their alleged schism. What this basically means that they were permitted to hold their same views, but only accept VII as legit Ecumenical Council and the Novus Ordo to be valid. Basically all their past Masses during the alleged schism were valid and licit even thought it was considered back then to be illicit.

Whatever side you are on, the prayers are needed.

 

[deogratias]

No insult, but the current indult situation stinks from my own experience, There is a parish where the bishop just cancelled the Traditional Latin Mass despite the strong demand(1600+ signatures) and plenty of priest who are willing to celebrate that Mass. Now the bishop just ignores the Traditional faithful who desires the legit Traditional Latin Mass and not have to attend a independent Chapel

Sounds like it is your Bishop who, to use your word, stinks.

I would not say the present indult situation stinks because it has allowed many of us with more generous Bishops to experience the Tridentine Mass but I would agree it could be improved. Hopefully your Bishop and other “stingy” Bishops will realize that denying access to this Mass creates more separation than does permitting it… at least this has been the experience of many Dioceses because some of the faithful who had been attending SSPX chapels did return to Mother Church in full communion.

Keep praying Johannes - situations change, Bishops change, new Bishops are appointed - I know. Things once seemed hopeless here in the Phoenix Diocese when Bishop O’Brien was in charge but now we have Bishop Olmsted who is orthodox in many ways, not just in permitting the TLM and what was once a spiritual wasteland for many of us (but not all - some liked it the liberal way) is coming in line with Church Teachins liturgically as well as theologically and a weekly TLM is well attended by those of us who prefer it.

 

[Iohannes]

Basically, we want the type of protection that the Monastery of Cluny got in the Middle ages, no interfence with the local Bishop but only answer directly to Rome and the pope, just like what Campos, Brazil is doing right now.

In my opinion, an apostolic administration is a better protection of the Traditional Mass than the indult, and plus you can have the other Traditional sacraments without the interference of the local Bishop.

Again, I wished the SSPX took this road when it had the chance, lets pray that they take the offer, which is more than what Archbishop Lefebvre was offered.

Please also pray for the Success of Campos, the worlds only Traditional Latin Mass Diocese in full communion with Rome with a fully Traditional Bishop obiedent to pope, if their model is sucessful, it may change the SSPX minds.

 

[PASCENDI]

RNRobert:

I do know there is a schismatic group called the SSPX (Society of St. Pius X) that celebrates the Latin Mass, but they were excommunicated by Pope John Paul II, and that their Masses are not considered valid as far as Sunday obligation is concerned. .

Just received my Latin Mass Magazine in the mail today. The editor says that Rome permits the laity to attend SSPX churches in dioceses that don’t have the indult and to even give money! A priest of the FSSP confirmed this but didn’t have time to explain.

Someone, please clarify. The SSPX looks good because often its detractors don’t know what they’re talking about

 

[The_Dead_Bishop]

stretch:

A priest at my son’s high school told him that a Latin Rite Mass offered at a local church was not a valid Mass for anyone not raised in the “old way”, by which I take he meant pre Vatican II. Has anyone heard such a thing? Is there some reason he would want to discourage high school students from attending a Latin Mass?

The Mass is either valid for all or not valid for any … ( Catholics )

 

[The_Dead_Bishop]

stretch:

A priest at my son’s high school told him that a Latin Rite Mass offered at a local church was not a valid Masss for anyone not raised in the “old way”, by which I take he meant pre Vatican II. Has anyone heard such a thing? Is there some reason he would want to discourage high school students from attending a Latin Mass?

The Mass is either valid for all Catholics or it is not valid for any Catholic…

 

[bear06]

Iohannes:

That is not true, a SSPX Mass can fullfill a sunday’s obligation as long as one does not deny the validly of the Novus Ordo and the intention is not schismatic.

Actually, this seems quite unclear. There was a letter from Msgr. Perle but when this was made public he made it VERY clear that this permission to go to a SSPX chapel was made to a specific person for a specific reason. The reason could have been, I have no way to get to another Church and this one is the only accessible one for me, will this fullfill my obligation? I’ve always thought it quite suspicious that the original letter to Msgr. Perle has never surfaced, only his reply which according to him seems to be taken out of context.

I’ve heard some say that Ratzinger has said it fullfills Sunday obligation but I’ve not been able to find it. Please feel free to post it if you’ve got the quote.

 

[bear06]

Tradcat89:

Dumspirospero,

 Iohannes is correct. My sister is an actual member of a SSPX group. One may fill one's Sunday obligation there as long as schism is not the intent. Any ligitamate priest may consecrate the Host. However, there is a dispute on whether the SSPX may marry people or hear confessions. All of their other sacraments are valid. The original bishops who started the SSPX were excamunicated by the Pope, however, those who attend their Mass and are ordained to serve the SSPX are in schism.   Glad I could clarify.

Actually, I don’t believe it ever says that they may fullfill their Sunday obligation. I believe it only says that they may attend the masses of SSPX. I think somebody already mentioned that the marriages are not valid (although I know that lohannes will disagree.)

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

bear06:

Actually, I don’t believe it ever says that they may fullfill their Sunday obligation. I believe it only says that they may attend the masses of SSPX. I think somebody already mentioned that the marriages are not valid (although I know that lohannes will disagree.)

An do not forget their confessions and annullments, those are both invalid as well.

 

[Silver_Thread]

Your stepping pretty far out there pointing that finger at a priest you do not know, nor do you know his reasons. Be careful you don’t poke yourself in the eye with the four fingers pointing back at yourself.

I would ask you this question? Did this Priest make this statement out of ignorance or maliciousness? I only see the two options!

 

[thedavidwilson]

This is the steryotipical approach of liberal NOers. I would reccommend researching the Church’s offical documents on SSPX. The last I heard, Rome does accept the SSPX as valid and that by attending their Masses, one fulfills his Sunday obligation.

As long as the SSPX priest has faculties from the local bishop to perform the sacraments. If they don’t, as some SSPX priests don’t, the Mass is illicit, does not satisfy the obligation and confession/marriage are not valid.

 

[LilyM]

As long as the SSPX priest has faculties from the local bishop to perform the sacraments. If they don’t, as some SSPX priests don’t, the Mass is illicit, does not satisfy the obligation and confession/marriage are not valid.

Guys, the thread is almost three years old