Members of the SSPX are not heretics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ace86
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually, the liturgy isn’t just some toy that a pope can come in tomorrow and declare “I want the whole thing overturned and replaced by something new.”

A great error of many today is the fantasy that the liturgy is the pope’s private plaything, ready to be adjusted at his will. There’s a reason it’s derived from the Greek for the “work of the people.”
 
AlexV said:
Actually, the liturgy isn’t just some toy that a pope can come in tomorrow and declare “I want the whole thing overturned and replaced by something new.”

A great error of many today is the fantasy that the liturgy is the pope’s private plaything, ready to be adjusted at his will. There’s a reason it’s derived from the Greek for the “work of the people.”
Click to expand...
I agree with JKirk. The Liturgy is not a doctrine. Even if people are attached to a particular one (TLM) and leaving emotions out of it, are you saying that Rome CANNOT make changes and if so, why?
Rome and subsequent Popes cannot be bound in matters of discipline.
 
AlexV said:
Actually, the liturgy isn’t just some toy that a pope can come in tomorrow and declare “I want the whole thing overturned and replaced by something new.”

A great error of many today is the fantasy that the liturgy is the pope’s private plaything, ready to be adjusted at his will. There’s a reason it’s derived from the Greek for the “work of the people.”
Click to expand...
As usual, you rhetorically overstate your case. No one has said that the liturgy is the pope’s private plaything, no one has fallen into that “great error” (really, the sweat must be gathering under your miter, what with all the definitions and declarations you’re issuing). I said that the Pope cannot bind his successors in matters of discipline, which the liturgy cleary IS (whether you think so or not, the Church clearly does think that it is).
 
JKirkLVNV said:
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.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with you Kirk but I would like yours and others opinion on something. IF Trent did say that then didn’t the members of Trent who composed that statement OVERSTEP their boundaries? Surely they would have known that they can’t bind their successors in matters of discipline?
 
I believe Alex strikes an interesting dichotomy regarding papal statements. When there is issued a Motu Proprio regarding Pro Multis, there is much rejoicing and approval. When there is a declaration that he disagrees with, it becomes a matter of “the pope’s private plaything.”
 
Dear ChildofMary,

This is only partially quoted, but the full document can be found here: ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/QUOPIUS.HTM
A moment’s reflection bears this out, for if they were matters of faith, then they would have to be, like the Faith itself, the same in all times. But this has never been the case. The liturgy (whatever degree of relative consistency one might see in it before a certain date, and whatever degree of relative inconsistency one might see in it after a certain date) has changed and evolved constantly and continuously throughout the Church’s history, both before and after the Council of Trent, and including the period between Trent and Vatican II. This general process of change is indicated in Quo Primum itself, where the Pope states: “For, besides other decrees of the sacred Council of Trent, there were stipulations for Us to revise and re-edit the sacred books: the Catechism, the Missal and the Breviary.” So Quo Primum itself is based on the obvious principle that the liturgy is capable of change.
Click to expand...
Now, back to the papal bull Quo Primum of Pope St. Pius V. It was far more popular in the 16th century to use sweeping language in Church documents than it is today, for better or worse, and this has given rise to some confusion among those who wish to find in Quo Primum an authoritative warrant for what is essentially a Protestant position: namely, that their own private judgement about the best form of worship for the Church may take precedence over the decisions of the duly constituted Church authorities who stand in the place of Christ.
Click to expand...
 
Actually, I could care less about the translation of “pro multis.” I don’t attend vernacular liturgies. Who wants to wonder when we need yet another new translation of Scripture or the Mass to “get things right”?

Keep your Novus Ordo. You worry about finally “getting it right” after try and try again. This is what happens with fabricated liturgies…and the Novus Ordo Missae is indeed a fabricated liturgy. Much of it was composed in a Swiss hotel room in the summers of 1965, 1966, and 1967.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Childofmary: Did Rykell answer your question?

The disciplinary edicts of Trent would have effect until altered by the proper authority. I don’t think they overstepped their bounds at all.
Click to expand...
Thanks JKirkLVNV
 
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...
No one here is bashing the TLM, Bob. On the contrary, certain “traditionalists” here are the ones who frequently and casually bash the NO for various reasons, with some even calling it an “abomination”. Alex’s post below is an example.
 
AlexV said:
Actually, I could care less about the translation of “pro multis.” I don’t attend vernacular liturgies. Who wants to wonder when we need yet another new translation of Scripture or the Mass to “get things right”?

Keep your Novus Ordo. You worry about finally “getting it right” after try and try again. This is what happens with fabricated liturgies…and the Novus Ordo Missae is indeed a fabricated liturgy. Much of it was composed in a Swiss hotel room in the summers of 1965, 1966, and 1967.
Click to expand...
Just curious. Were you there in that Swiss hotel room while the NO was being “fabricated”?
 
Didn’t need to be. One of the chief fabricators of it left a METICULUOUS record of what, when, why, how the elements of the Novus Ordo were fabricated together to create a liturgy.

Annibale Bugnini, “La Riforma di Liturgica Romana”.

I highly suggest getting a copy and reading it before making any posts about the liturgy.

Don’t lie, either. Did I call the Novus Ordo an “abomination”? Nope. A fabrication. My word is historically accurate. I didn’t say “abomination”, so don’t lie.
 
WARNING! Please keep charity in mind and stay on topic or I will close the thread.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
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.
Click to expand...
That sounds like a canned response to something I did not write.

I was talking about Trent. Is there such a Pope that I was unaware of?
 
RobedWithLight said:
No one here is bashing the TLM, Bob. On the contrary, certain “traditionalists” here are the ones who frequently and casually bash the NO for various reasons, with some even calling it an “abomination”. Alex’s post below is an example.
Click to expand...
Yes, and I admit to being one of them. The NO was indeed an abomination. How can one deny that, seeing what it’s become? And none of that reverent NO stuff, either. NO wasn’t manufactured to be celebrated “reverently”; otherwise they would have left the Old Mass alone if they wanted reverence. What do they want, more variety of the same thing? I don’t know, maybe they did.

I have to say, though, the NO was magnificently marketed. But every manufactured product has a relatively short product life cycle. In fact, don’t they want to change it again? Aren’t they happy with having one celebrated in just about every language now? And some even in bilingual languages. And some of them even without priests. How many varieties of the New Coke will they produce in order to keep them happy?
 
childofmary1143 said:
I totally agree with you Kirk but I would like yours and others opinion on something. IF Trent did say that then didn’t the members of Trent who composed that statement OVERSTEP their boundaries? Surely they would have known that they can’t bind their successors in matters of discipline?
Click to expand...
Trent addressed any New Rites as being heretical. It was NOT a disciplinary thing either, unless you want to talk to the Martin Luther or Henry VIII supporters. The Council of Trent was not set up by someone who had visions in the middle of the night. It was set up in response to hijacking revolutionaries who thought the Church had been preaching nonsense so they started their own liturgies.

In fact, I believe the Lutherans developed their own “traditional” mass (which some still say today) just before Pius V wrote his Quo Primum encyclical. If it’s “just” discipline, then go for it.
 
BobP123 said:
Yes, and I admit to being one of them. The NO was indeed an abomination. How can one deny that, seeing what it’s become? And none of that reverent NO stuff, either. NO wasn’t manufactured to be celebrated “reverently”; otherwise they would have left the Old Mass alone if they wanted reverence. What do they want, more variety of the same thing? I don’t know, maybe they did.

I have to say, though, the NO was magnificently marketed. But every manufactured product has a relatively short product life cycle. In fact, don’t they want to change it again? Aren’t they happy with having one celebrated in just about every language now? And some even in bilingual languages. And some of them even without priests. How many varieties of the New Coke will they produce in order to keep them happy?
Click to expand...
Some how I think that the Assumption Grotto folks will disagree. I do too because I go to a less famous but similar Novus Ordo and I’ve been fortunate enough to attend Masses said by Fr. Fessio.
 
BobP123 said:
Trent addressed any New Rites as being heretical. It was NOT a disciplinary thing either, unless you want to talk to the Martin Luther or Henry VIII supporters. The Council of Trent was not set up by someone who had visions in the middle of the night. It was set up in response to hijacking revolutionaries who thought the Church had been preaching nonsense so they started their own liturgies.

In fact, I believe the Lutherans developed their own “traditional” mass (which some still say today) just before Pius V wrote his Quo Primum encyclical. If it’s “just” discipline, then go for it.
Click to expand...
Please give me a little quote from Trent.
 
BobP123 said:
Yes, and I admit to being one of them. The NO was indeed an abomination. How can one deny that, seeing what it’s become?
Click to expand...
It has become the normative rite of Mass for the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. It is the Mass that the Pope celebrates as well as 80% of all the bishops of the Catholic Church.

How can someone deny that it is an abomination? Well, certainly, anti-Catholics will be glad to call it an abomination. But an abomination is something profoundly evil and sinful.

How can a Catholic call an approved rite of Mass an abomination? Ok, you didn’t ask that question, but I would certainly wonder that.

What “has the Novus Ordo become” in your opinion. I’ve seen a change of translations in the English text – the use of Pro Multis as “for many”. I was told 20 years ago by so-called traditionalists that that would never change. In fact, some claimed that the greatest reason for the Tridentine Mass to be used today was because of the Pro Multis mistranslation. Now today – ooops. The translation was corrected.

My conclusion, so-called traditionalists are filled with despair and lack of faith in the power of God to make improvements in the Church.

All of the bishops of the world, including Abp. Lefevbre voted to change the 1962 Missal. Then, a decade later, traditionalists claimed that the 1962 Missal should never change.
And none of that reverent NO stuff, either. NO wasn’t manufactured to be celebrated “reverently”; otherwise they would have left the Old Mass alone if they wanted reverence.
Click to expand...
This again is where you’re not quite right. All of the bishops of the world, including Abp. Lefevbre voted to change the 1962 Missal. They produced and signed a document stating that the “Old Mass” would indeed be changed. Why?
In fact, don’t they want to change it again? Aren’t they happy with having one celebrated in just about every language now?
Click to expand...
Given that there are traditional Masses in just about every diocese in the United States and virtually nobody attends them, I would say that people are mostly happy with the Novus Ordo, but the Pope recognizes that some changes are needed.

Over time, the Novus Ordo will resemble the Tridentine Mass more and there really won’t be an issue. Meanwhile, I don’t think anybody should imagine that the 1962 Missal should be a permanent feature of the Roman Rite. The bishops have already recognized together in an Ecumenical Council that that liturgical rite needed changes – as it had changed in prior centuries. Eventually, a changed edition of that liturgy as a hybrid with the new rite will be the Mass of Rome and of the Pope – and therefore of Latin Rite Catholics.

I was said to be “out of line” when I pointed out that there are errors in the traditionalist movement. I’ll say that you’re quite out of line to call the Mass of the Holy Father and celebrated by many good priests throughout the world an “abomination”. Then again, you could be an anti-Catholic agitator so it would be understandable, but still not excusable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top