Members of the SSPX are not heretics

[JKirkLVNV]

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?

You’ve confused me.

A) I didn’t make a canned response of any kind. I made a statement of fact, that any informed Catholic would be aware of. Trent could not and DID NOT bind future popes on ANY disciplinary matter, including the form of the Mass. It’s a fantasy to say otherwise.

B) “I was talking about Trent. Is there such a Pope that I was unaware of?” I assumed you were talking about Pope St. Pius V, who issued the decrees implementing the reforms of the Council of Trent (amply demonstrating that popes CAN modify the disciplines of the sacraments). Pope St. Pius V’s decrees on disciplinary matters would have the force of law (and even enjoy a negative infallibility) right up until the point that another pope altered that discipline.

 

[AlexV]

" 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. "

False, and disrespectful. First off, what the pope celebrates does not make something “normative”.

Second off, the “Roman Rite” includes several different usages.

Third off, for some, the Tridentine is indeed the “proper” liturgy peculiar to them…not a mere “indult”.

If by “normative” you mean “what most Roman Catholics do/experience in liturgy”, fine.

But don’t try to imagine “normative” is a word with any legal standing in Catholic liturgical law. Because it isn’t.

And, remember…what the pope does isn’t “normative”. John Paul II often wore stoles outside chasubles. That’s not envisioned in the rubrics, but he did it. Didn’t make it “normative” or legal. Papal practice does not make something right, normative, or even “legal” all by itself.

 

[AlexV]

" 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. "

Arrogance, and false. Insulting to the many who DO attend Tridentine Masses, sometimes going out of their way to attend something the (arch)diocese deliberately makes inconvenient for many to attend.

In one diocese a few years ago, Mass was scheduled at 6 am in a remote location. After a year the attendance figures were abysmal, and the bishop said “See…nobody wants it.”

Disingenuous and unworthy of a Catholic bishop.

It’s easy to say most people are “happy” with a liturgy (as if this is all about majority vote anyway) when you work awfully hard to ban something for decades and then begrudgingly let it back under incredibly strict control.

 

[AlexV]

Finally, there is no such thing as a “Mass of the Holy Father”. The pope INHERITS the liturgy as a possession of tradition. He doesn’t own it, he doesn’t possess it…it’s not his.

 

[Ham1]

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

You find the word “normative” objectionable because it is not in official liturgical documents. Yet does the word “traditional” appear in the official liturgical documents as the name of the Mass? Why is offensive when one uses the adjective “normative” but it is not offensive when you use the adjective “traditional?” Both are without concise liturgical meaning.

 

[AlexV]

Fine…stop using “normative” as an inaccurate, thinly veiled bludgeon and I will happily stop using “traditional” as a label for anything at all.

 

[Ham1]

Fine…stop using “normative” as an inaccurate, thinly veiled bludgeon and I will happily stop using “traditional” as a label for anything at all.

I could be wrong, but I don’t recall using the word normative very often and certainly never as a bludgeon. I just use it with the meaning “pertaining to a standard or norm.” Since right now the standard for mass in the Catholic Church is the Ordo Missae or Novus Ordo, the adjective seems to fit. Just as the adjective “traditional” seems to describe accurately the pre-Vatican II Mass.

Not really sure what the big deal is here.

I’m not sure what the big deal is, either. Please move beyond this minor squabble, people, and return to the topic. Jean Anthony, moderator.

 

[AlexV]

Notice how easy errors get bigger…“the standard for Mass in the Catholic Church is the Novus Ordo.”

Ever hear of Easterners? They are Catholic.

Ever hear of Ambrosians? They are Catholic.

What about Mozarabic Rite users? What about the Apostolic Administration of John Vianney? What about the SSPX, who are, according to Rome, an “internal” affair of the Catholic Church? What about people for whom the Tridentine Mass is their only regular liturgy?

The Church has traditionally respected VARIETY of liturgies. It’s only a relatively recent thing to start talking about “normative” and “standard” as potential badges of obedience or lack thereof.

“Normative” is inaccurate and problematic. No reason to use it when from a legal point of view it has implications (i.e. Latin NORMA = rule/law). Because it isn’t everybody’s rule.

 

[Ham1]

Notice how easy errors get bigger…“the standard for Mass in the Catholic Church is the Novus Ordo.”

Ever hear of Easterners? They are Catholic.

Ever hear of Ambrosians? They are Catholic.

What about Mozarabic Rite users? What about the Apostolic Administration of John Vianney? What about the SSPX, who are, according to Rome, an “internal” affair of the Catholic Church? What about people for whom the Tridentine Mass is their only regular liturgy?

The Church has traditionally respected VARIETY of liturgies. It’s only a relatively recent thing to start talking about “normative” and “standard” as potential badges of obedience or lack thereof.

“Normative” is inaccurate and problematic. No reason to use it when from a legal point of view it has implications (i.e. Latin NORMA = rule/law). Because it isn’t everybody’s rule.

Sorry, I meant the latin rite of the Catholic Church except where an indult (a permitted deviation from the law) is granted for a different liturgy. The error had nothing to do with the word normative, just a mistatement on my part.

You might want to note that when you do a google search for normative mass virtually all of the people using the term are traditionalists who apparently don’t find the term offensive.

Anyway, it’s kind of a silly thing to argue about so I’ll stop.

 

[AlexV]

The PAA of St. John Vianney has no indult. Their proper liturgy is that of 1962.

 

[Joe_Stong]

Gosh I hate to mention the obvious, but even if they WERE heretics, we couldn’t claim they were without violating this site’s rules.

But we’re adults for goodness sake, and words have meanings. Definite, objective meanings… it’s within the realm of possibility for people to become heretics.

Using the word as an insult is naturally not charitable, but how could use of the term as a descriptive, IN CONTEXT, be somehow uncharitable?

Wouldn’t it be really uncharitable to allow someone who believes themselves to be authentically Catholic, in full union with the Church and believing the deposit of faith, to persist in a belief either about that Church or its doctrine that is simply wrong?

What do you call someone who persists in error about the Church or its doctrine? “Confused”? Or “partially wrong”?

And if one believed - for example - that Mary was divine, and taught as much - while totally accepting every other Catholic belief, wouldn’t THAT specific belief and teaching be heretical?

It’s a worthy thing to seek charity, but you can’t expect people to either dance around descriptive words as though the word and not the thing described is the problem. Vagueness doesn’t serve truth so how could it serve charity?

That said, there’s a categorical difference between describing someone’s beliefs and describing someone’s moral culpability. One can honestly be mistaken without malice.

Charity must always refrain from judging the culpability of people but not the rightness or wrongness of their acts, words, or omissions.

 

[Joe_Stong]

With respect to the Novus Ordo. I have experienced it celebrated in Latin, with Gregorian chant, candles, incense, dramatic silences, and reverence by people and priests.

And I have experienced the Tridentine Mass celebrated hastily without pomp, atrocious American-accented Latin, and people either praying the rosary during the Mass or fidgetting and glancing at watches.

The problem is not therefore the approved rite but the people who either do or don’t take it with the seriousness the sacrament deserves.

That said, we need to realise that what’s going on is bigger than the Mass - people use it as a launch pad to revisit their own lives… there’s alot of people alive today who regard the pre-1965 years of their lives with horror for more reasons than the Mass, and others who regard those years with good feelings.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning exists on both “sides” of the Tridentine/Novus Ordo debate; those whose family and marital lives fell apart after the mid-60’s blame the changes on Vatican II and the Mass. Those who felt their lives better after the 1960’s obviously think the changes had something to do with the good effects.

But one cannot draw such easy connections. Alot of people felt hurt in the Church in the pre-Vatican II era, and alot others felt hurt afterwards by the Church following the coucil.

I’m not arguing that either are wrong. Both sides genuinely felt something bad. But the problem wasn’t the rite. It was the people who didn’t live up to their calling, who didn’t seek first the Kingdom.

 

[guanophore]

what I don’t understand about SSPXers is that more people were murdered by him, or under his charge than any other Pope in history. How is it that people want to emulate someone who thinks that anyone who believes differently than himself should be put to death?! Is this the sentiment of all the SSPX? In my conversation with the Sedavacantist nun, I learned that all the Roman Catholics since Vat. II are heretics, but even though she does think we are all going to hell, she does not seem inclined to get us there any earlier!

From: rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/

See the post entitled: For the record - Castrillón: "The Bishops, Priests, and Faithful of the [SSPX] are not schismatics."

The Bishops, Priests, and Faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics. It is Archbishop Lefebvre who has undertaken an illicit Episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics. I do, however, share St Jerome’s fear that heresy leads to schism and vice versa. The danger of a schism is big, such as a systematic disobedience vis-à-vis the Holy Father or by a denial of his authority. It is after all a service of charity, so that the Priestly Society gains full communion with the Holy Father by acknowledging the sanctity of the new Mass.

So. Does this mean that a faithful Catholic may join the Society of St. Pius X without there being bad consequences? And that if one joined, they wouldn’t be schismatic, or heretical, or excommunicated? I guess so, because His Eminence is so clear on the issue. Your thoughts?

 

[Joe_Stong]

Uh…I don’t think you have the right Pope. Pius X ruled at the turn of the 20th century, not in the middle ages when the Popes ran the Papal States and actually fought wars.

 

[reggieM]

Alex - you skip over a point I have repeated quite often – the Ecumenical Council voted to change the 1962 Missal. Clearly, they saw something in it that needed change.

The fact that the Pope celebrates the Novus Ordo as the Mass of the Holy See is merely a parallel to what was said about the Tridentine Mass, and why that Mass spread under the rule of Charlemagne. He wanted his subjects to conform to the Mass of the Pope. After that, Pope Pius V imposed the Tridentine Mass on the rest of the Church – for the very same reason since it was the Mass of the Pope. As a result, (although his legislation said to preserve minority rites) several usages of the Roman Rite became extinct (as the Ambrosian almost did, but was limited to that see).

It is not insulting to state the fact. The 1962 Missal exists in the Church today as an exception to the liturgical directives as given by Vatican II. It is a tolerated rite that is permitted. Legally, it has no standing in Canon Law – there are no liturgical laws that support it. A priest can change and adapt the 1962 Missal in many different ways – as it has happened many times. It can have communion in the hand, altar girls and extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist.

You’re thinking that this usage somehow is fixed and is supported by the liturgical laws of the Church but that is not true. As such, one can even argue that the 1962 Missal is not even normative to itself.

 

[AlexV]

Your views are offensive and false.

I am a member of the Apostolic Administration of John Vianney. The 1962 liturgy is our PROPER rite. Not indult, not exception…PROPER. Only, in fact.

Cardinal Castrillon, charged by the Pope to handle traditionalist matters, has more than once stated that the 1962liturgy “retains its rank and citizenship among the Church’s rites.”

Merely “tolerated”? Implies second class citizenship. Unacceptable, untrue, offensive. The Church FOSTERS rites…she doesn’t merely “tolerate” them.

As for the abuses you described, the Vatican’s Pontifical Commission has made a few MODEST and OPTIONAL alterations to the 1962 Missal. Optional, I emphasize. The abuses you describe are not permitted in the 1962 rubrics, and they are not sanctioned by the Ecclesia Dei Commission.

Canon Law, further, has NOTHING to do with this issue. Canon Law does not regularly concern itself with liturgical law.

You also need a serious history lesson in what happened in 1570. Pius V did not “impose” the Missal “of the Pope” on the entire West. He codified what was MAINSTREAM practice, while acknowledging the venerable existence of other rites and usages…unlike Paul VI, who clearly wanted everything but his Missal suppressed. Fortunately, he never got his way.

 

[reggieM]

I’ll repeat – the Fathers of Vatican II (including Abp. Lefevbre) voted in an Ecumenical Council to change the 1962 Missal. Clearly, they found something in that Mass that needed reform. Your continual reply of “I’m offended!” needs to be directed at the entire body of Catholic bishops who themselves celebrated Mass with the 1962 Missal.

Secondly, you imagine that Canon Law does not touch on liturgical directives, but that is clearly false. Rome has already ruled that Communion in the hand is permitted at the 1962 Missal since that is permitted canonically. You are calling this an “abuse” but it’s clear that you don’t understand Canon Law or its application to the liturgy.

Catholics are bound by Canon Law and the Ecclesia Dei Commission has made that clear. Email Msgr. Calkins at the Ecclesia Dei commission sometime. He will explain it to you.

 

[AlexV]

First off, it’s objectively insulting to go around telling someone that a liturgy that has been granted to them BY PARTICULAR LAW as their PROPER LITURGY and NORM is somehow “in need of reform”.

What’s the point of that? Shall we abolish the Indult and use the “reformed” 2002 Missal? Shall we hold a new Council to try over again with “reform”?

Give me a break. Spare us your lectures on how the 1962 Missal needs reform. The only place that leads is finding an excuse NOT to allow its use. Like so many have done.

As for “Canon Law”, the PCED has NEVER issued a ruling that Communion in the hand is permitted at a Tridentine Mass.

First off, do you know how often people are REFUSED Communion on the tongue?

I’ve been refused it no fewer than 20 times at a Novus Ordo over the years. Friends report the same.

So spare us the “Communion in the hand at Tridentine Masses canard”.

Communion in the hand was granted by INDULT, it is, ironically, identical in status to a Tridentine Mass. Except it was originally introduced in the States illegally, before Rome confirmed the Indult.

I have corresponded with the PCED frequently, on many subjects. Next point?

You also need a course in reading comprehension. I said Canon Law does not “regularly” treat liturgical law. You overstated what I (correctly) posted to serve your own ends.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

WARNING: The level of charity is dropping rapidly, people. No sarcasm or nastiness allowed.

 

[reggieM]

What’s the point of that? Shall we abolish the Indult and use the “reformed” 2002 Missal? Shall we hold a new Council to try over again with “reform”?

We should admit that the Council voted unanimously that the 1962 Missal needed reform. Sure, we should abolish the indult and comply with what the Ecumenical Council established. The fathers of the Council made it clear that the 1962 Missal had problems. You, on the contrary, are very offended by that notion – as if the Council never happened or all the bishops of the Catholic Church were wrong.

The point of my reminding you? To try to help you conform your vision to the reality. Eventually, people will look at the Council texts and realize that the liturgical changes were modest and were required. The intention of the Council will eventually be fulfilled – and yes, the indult which should never have existed will be abolished.

I’m trying to help you see that before you give your unqualifed committment to a rite of Mass which was declared in need of reform for the good of the Church.

Spare us your lectures on how the 1962 Missal needs reform.

The fact that you’re so emotional about this very basic and essential point as established by all the Catholic bishops of the world, including Archbishop Lefevbre tells me that it’s been very good that I lectured you on this. You’re losing your cool because it’s a fact you don’t like to hear.

As for “Canon Law”, the PCED has NEVER issued a ruling that Communion in the hand is permitted at a Tridentine Mass.

They didn’t make the ruling public. But it was given privately to a priest. I have a copy of the letter.

First off, do you know how often people are REFUSED Communion on the tongue?

I don’t know what you’re talking about. I believe you’ve switched the topic to the Novus Ordo – and I would agree that’s a good idea since the 1962 Missal is currently in use today only as a reaction against the Novus Ordo. If the reform had been done correctly, Abp. Lefevbre wouldn’t have started his priestly society – as he admitted himself. He would have been happy with a modest reform, AND the use of vernacular. As would Una Voce.

I’ve been refused it no fewer than 20 times at a Novus Ordo over the years. Friends report the same.

I would absolutely agree that is something to object to and complain about. I believe we should do everything possible to bring traditional practices to the Novus Ordo.

I said the liturgical norms for the 1962 Missal are not currently found in Canon Law. You replied:

I said Canon Law does not “regularly” treat liturgical law. You overstated what I (correctly) posted to serve your own ends.

I would say that there are over 200 Canons regarding liturgical law in the Code of Canon law. Some of those canons apply to the 1962 Missal but only indirectly. The 1984 Code assumes it is speaking about a single Roman Rite of Mass. For example, it permits the use of the vernacular language.

Perhaps if a priest challenged the indult by offering the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular, Rome would offer some actual ruling on the rubrics of the 1962 Missal. But it could happen that Rome would simply cite Canon Law and proclaim that the vernacular is permitted in the 1962 usage.

Nobody has tried it that I know of – but that would tell us more about how the law is applied.