Members of the SSPX are not heretics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ace86
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“Normative” is an inaccurate term.

It occurs nowhere in the official liturgical documents of Rome except as the name of the 1967 version of the Novus Ordo Missae that was celebrated for the sake of eliciting comments in the Sistine Chapel to a select audience (the so-called Missa Normativa).
 
Reggie Post #21:
It’s a very dangerous temptation and many can fall into it without even thinking. It’s deceptive – the person drifts farther away, all the while thinking he or she is even more and more filled with truth and correctness and virtue.
Click to expand...
Agreed. :yup:

Jn 16:2, “A time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God. They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me.”
 
Dear Maurin,

Cardinal Arinze refers to the N.O. mass as normative, so you are not incorrect in using terminology that the Magisterium has adopted when referring to this Mass. Just a few examples:

adoremus.org/1103ArinzeAddress.html (Cardinal Arinze)

adoremus.org/1199-Kocik.html

adoremus.org/0506NewsViews.html

My personal guess why traditionists would find this word offensive, is that they believe the TLM is “normative” and do not appreciate hearing the word “indult.” Maybe one could coin a new term that specifically denotes the N.O. Mass is the “normal” rite of the Church?
 
Cardinal Arinze is free to use whatever adjective he wants, but the fact remains the Novus Ordo is not “normative” except in the sense that it’s the Mass most frequently/commonly/“normally” seen in the Roman Catholic Church/Roman/Latin Rite.

Cardinal Arinze does not constitute the “Magisterium” either. If he does, then surely you agree the SSPX bishops and priests are not in “schism”. Cardinal Castrillon said so. Is he not the “Magisterium”?

But the fact remains that the Novus Ordo Missae is not “normative” in any legal sense, however. “Normativa” is not an adjective you will find anywhere in the official Latin liturgical documents, except, as I noted, as the title of the 1967 “Missa Normativa” celebrated in the Sistine Chapel in January over 3 days/3 Masses…a title Bugnini used to show what his Consilium’s liturgy would “normally”/“usually” look like.

Traditionalists object to the term “Normative Mass” because it’s inaccurate and not supported by official documents. Period.

Incidentally, some people dislike the term “Novus Ordo Missae”. Alas, it is stamped in gold on the first edition published of the Novus Ordo. That’s the edition that had to be returned to the printer after it was discovered it contained the words PATER, TU ES SOLUS DEUS…the Arian heresy. Hasty recall and alteration.

That sort of thing can happen, though, when you compose Eucharistic Prayers in Swiss hotel rooms.
 
Whatever, Alex.

It has become common terminology among those who refer to the Novus Ordo Mass, whether or NOT it is used in an official document. Nobody can be called incorrect if they adopt a word that is generally understood by most people. I saw a thread the other day where someone was rudely corrected for using the word Old Testament instead of Hebrew Scriptures, yet the first wording is the one commonly used and understood by the majority. Simply semantics.
 
It’s called precision, Rykell.

You start calling something the Normative Mass and it can be EASILY misunderstood. And it’s offensive to people for whom the Novus Ordo is NOT the Normative Mass (since there is no such thing as a “Normative Mass” anyway).

Only lately has this phrase cropped up, around the same time it became a mark of obedience for everyone to do the same thing liturgically.
 
Majority rule does not make a term accurate. 250 people using it on a forum does not make it accurate. Whether you like it or not.
 
40.png
Walking_Home:
Do you know what arianism is. This post is also absurd and out of line.

Walking, indeed, my experience with SSPX as a group is limited to only a few parishes and neighboring states. So my post is purely experiential and not to be taken as factual.

Still, I can’t help but notice that those who hold to this group have a mindset and lifestyle contrary in some specific ways to the Holy Mother Church.

I’ll be the first to say that the TLM is a beautiful Mass and one which I love to attend. In earlier posts you can see that I have talked about having my wedding ceremony at a parish which only says the LM. This is the parish my fiancee is registered in.

Well, I guess this is enough defense for one post. It is disappointing that you zap with one-liners instead of presenting an antithesis to my post. It would be great to hear something positive regarding those who follow this group.
 
Still, I can’t help but notice that those who hold to this group have a mindset and lifestyle contrary in some specific ways to the Holy Mother Church.
Click to expand...
Well said - I stumbled into some of these discussions myszelf and it saddened me…
 
Walking_Home said:
Then—why do you try to find ways to attack them.
Click to expand...
You don’t think that perhaps you’re reading something into Bear’s statement?

There is a papal document that clearly states that what the Archbishop, the assisting bishop, and the four bishops-“elect” did was schismatic and that they are excommunicated. There is an interview with a cardinal who states that they are not.

It’s hardly an attack on the SSPX to point out the imbalance in credibility. I’ve never read anything written by Bear06 that can be construed as other than a correction (that they are, in fact, excommunicated, the priests suspended ad divinis, and the faithful cautioned against schism.
 
Important to note that Ecclesia Dei isn’t infallible.

Cardinal Castrillon isn’t just any cardinal. He’s the pope’s official representative for traditionalist causes. To imagine he just says things like “they’re not in schism” thoughtlessly or without significance is serendipitous.

This comment by His Eminence is a watershed moment in traditionalist affairs.
 
AlexV said:
Important to note that Ecclesia Dei isn’t infallible.

Cardinal Castrillon isn’t just any cardinal. He’s the pope’s official representative for traditionalist causes. To imagine he just says things like “they’re not in schism” thoughtlessly or without significance is serendipitous.

This comment by His Eminence is a watershed moment in traditionalist affairs.
Click to expand...
That’s a misquote. He actually has never said “they’re not in schism”. He certainly has said everything but though.

He has said:
We take care of those who did not wish to follow Archbishop Lefebvre – which is not exactly a schism
Click to expand...
So what is exactly not a schism here? Those who didn’t wish to follow Lefebvre? Lefebvre? - we know he was in schism.
and we have the often misquoted 30 Days article where he says
even if it was not a formal schism
Click to expand...
So many qualifications which make things awfully murky. Why doesn’t he just say “the SSPX is not in schism”?
 
AlexV said:
Don’t repeat yourself. It doesn’t strengthen your position.
Click to expand...
You should end with “little girl”. Maybe that would make your derogatory comments sound a little more authoritative.:rotfl: Again, are we really going to start getting personal?
 
AlexV said:
Important to note that Ecclesia Dei isn’t infallible.

Cardinal Castrillon isn’t just any cardinal. He’s the pope’s official representative for traditionalist causes. To imagine he just says things like “they’re not in schism” thoughtlessly or without significance is serendipitous.

This comment by His Eminence is a watershed moment in traditionalist affairs.
Click to expand...
Worthy of note is that the same encyclical also requires ALL the bishops to be GENEROUS in granting the TLM in their respective diocese. Can we not say that most bishops have been disobedient in this regard?

Of course the TLM bashers are always obedient to the Pope. Yeh, right! Never mind their own NO (and position on the TLM) violate Trent.
Session 7, CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.

This means non-acceptance of the Traditional Rite (or any other RECEIVED AND APPROVED rite) puts one outside the Church, i.e., in schism.

The NO was a manufactured Rite. And it was NEW per Paul VI’s own admission. OOPS, he must not have read Trent.
 
BobP123 said:
Worthy of note is that the same encyclical also requires ALL the bishops to be GENEROUS in granting the TLM in their respective diocese. Can we not say that most bishops have been disobedient in this regard?

Yes Bob, it does say that but if we follow Alex’s argument, it’s Ecclesia Dei is not infallible so maybe that one’s wrong too.😉
Of course the TLM bashers are always obedient to the Pope. Yeh, right! Never mind their own NO (and position on the TLM) violate Trent.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
BobP123 said:
Worthy of note is that the same encyclical also requires ALL the bishops to be GENEROUS in granting the TLM in their respective diocese. Can we not say that most bishops have been disobedient in this regard?

Of course the TLM bashers are always obedient to the Pope. Yeh, right! Never mind their own NO (and position on the TLM) violate Trent.
Session 7, CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.

This means non-acceptance of the Traditional Rite (or any other RECEIVED AND APPROVED rite) puts one outside the Church, i.e., in schism.

The NO was a manufactured Rite. And it was NEW per Paul VI’s own admission. OOPS, he must not have read Trent.
Click to expand...
Who is bashing the TLM?

Popes cannot bind their successors in matters of discipline. The liturgy is a matter of discipline, not dogma or doctrine, not faith or morals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top