Members of the SSPX are not heretics

[reggieM]

I read the warning by Jean.

Alex – I apologize if my tone and comments were uncharitable. You made good points and I was too hasty with my replies.

With Lent starting I am going to quiet down my posts here. Thanks again for your replies.

 

[AlexV]

Your views are not in accord with the mind of the Church.

Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, who is the Church’s OFFICIAL spokesman for matters involving the 1962 liturgy, including every liturgical book in print that year, has stated that the Tridentine liturgy “retains its citizenship among the Church’s rites, and cannot be considered extinct.”

Entire religious orders are founded around it. How insulting to tell them they’re founded to promote a liturgy that has a big asterisk by it.

A Personal Apostolic Administration, with right of succession, is founded with this liturgy as its norm. How insulting to tell them (and I am a member of it) not to give their “unqualified support” to their “unreformed” liturgy.

But the HEIGHT of your arrogance…and it is arrogance…is when you show your true colors: “the indult that should never have existed.”

You make plain in those words that you are opposed to the indult.

It is you who needs a reality check. The liturgy is as it is: there is a liturgy that resulted from Vatican II…go visit Los Angeles, Rochester, Orange County, Erie, Amsterdam and see it…and there is a Tridentine revival (and it IS a revival, since there are far more 1962 Masses in 2007 than in, say, 77, 87, or even 97 worldwide)…in fact, there are more 1962 Masses than 2002 in the world, since most people worldwide use a vernacular indult, not the 2002 Missal.

As for the 1962 Mass and what may happen at it, the rubrics of the 1962 Missal do not envisage the evrnacular, nor Communion on the hand. I have many private PCED letters, some of which have allowed me the use of 1956 rubrics. That doesn’t make this a universal allowance.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Be careful to be charitable, folks.

 

[Ham1]

A Personal Apostolic Administration, with right of succession, is founded with this liturgy as its norm. How insulting to tell them (and I am a member of it) not to give their “unqualified support” to their “unreformed” liturgy.

Just curious…do you live in Campos? If not, how do you become a member since the PAA is given a geographic territory the same as the diocese (or archdiocese) of Campos? Does this mean someone could join a diocese in which they do not live? Please let me know how this works.

Thanks!

 

[Rykell]

in fact, there are more 1962 Masses than 2002 in the world, since most people worldwide use a vernacular indult, not the 2002 Missal.

Could you explain how this is an “indult?” The GIRM states:

usccb.org/liturgy/current/publication.shtml

Decree of Publication
In accord with the norms established by decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites in Cum, nostra ætate (January 27, 1966), this edition of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal is declared to be the vernacular typical edition of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, editio typica tertia in the dioceses of the United States of America, and is published by authority of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal was canonically approved for use by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on November 12, 2002, and was subsequently confirmed by the Holy See by decree of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on March 17, 2003 (Prot. N. 2235/02/L).

Effective immediately, this translation of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal is the sole translation of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, editio typica tertia for use in the dioceses of the United States of America.

Given at the General Secretariat of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, D.C., on March 19, 2003, the Feast of Saint Joseph, Husband of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Most Reverend Wilton D. Gregory
Bishop of Belleville
President

Reverend Monsignor William P. Fay
General Secretary

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

 

[AlexV]

The ordinary of the PAA is allowed to inscribe people in his administration who do not live in the state of Campos in Brazil.

This can be very helpful in terms of gaining sacramental permissions, not to mention the advantages to a traditionalist of being subject to a traditionalist bishop.

 

[reggieM]

Alex, I believe that warning from Jean was directed at you.

I thought I made my points clear, but you’ve decided to make it personal against me. I believe that you’ve repeated in every reply to me that I am “insulting” to you, and I have “offended” people. Now you add that I am “arrogant”.

The 1962 Missal does have an asterisk by it – a very big asterisk. The asterisk says that we must ignore the fact that an Ecumenical Council comprised of all the bishops of the world voted that this rite of Mass required reforms – it was in need of modifications. We must pretend that didn’t happen and believe that the Council intended the 1962 Missal to survive just as it was prior to Vatican II.

There are religious orders surrounding this missal. That is no guarantee of permanence. There were religious orders started for specific needs in the Church – and when those needs disappeared, many of those orders ceased to exist. The same could be true of the 1962 Missal groups we have now.

As I said, my interest was in challenging your opinions and hoping that you would see a larger picture. You’ve found this threatening, and I can understand that.

I have met personally with 3 of the current members of the Ecclesia Dei commission in Rome and I’ve talked with them extensively on this issue. They did not call me “arrogant” for saying the very same things to them that I’ve said to you, although perhaps they were just being polite. I will say that they agreed with me – or better, that I learned from them.

I will continue to discuss and learn about these issues and hopefully arrive at a fuller and deeper understanding. The kind of extreme and ill-considered responses I see from many so-called traditionalists contributes to my learning.

I would offer this thought to Jean Anthony – I appreciate your interjections on this discussion.

Personally, as I’ve said elsewhere, the rash comments and outright errors that are posted frequently on this particular forum are very frightnening to me because I have seen first hand, this kind of poor argumentation, common in the traditionalist movement, doing a great deal of damage to people.

I am glad that the moderation has increased lately – and thanks for your efforts to keep the conversations charitable, and I hope fruitful for the entire Church.

 

[AlexV]

Your arrogance…and I think the word is accurate and hardly “uncharitable” if true…and, incidentally, the Moderator posted a warning that did NOT specify an individual, so it could be claimed you are further displaying arrogance by declaring it was aimed at your interlocutor and not you…is rooted in the assumption that you are right and I am wrong.

I have met Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, more than once. Discussed these issues with him. I have asked him about the issue of the “permanance” of Ecclesia Dei communities.

He noted that the PAA of St. John Vianney was NOT established under the Ecclesia Dei Indult. It has the 1962 liturgy as its PROPER Rite. Not some Indult. Proper. And its bishop has the right of succession.

He also noted that the Holy See does not erect communities without the hope that they prosper ACCORDING TO THEIR CHARISM.

There is no “asterisk” by the 1962 liturgy in ANY official documents. Not a single one. You assert that there is, without any document to back you up.

You have stated you disagree with the Indult…so you are in disagreement with two popes.

You have stated the 1962 liturgy stands in opposition to the wishes of an Ecumenical Council…meanwhile the Cardinal President of the Commission in charge of said liturgy says that the 1962 liturgy “RETAINS its RIGHT of citizenship among the Church’s liturgies”.

I’ll go with the documents, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, and Bishop Rifan (my bishop). They’re a bit more expert on these matters than you. I don’t find you “threatening” (another mark of arrogance is assuming the emotional states of others over the internet). I find you all too similar to the typical opponent of the liberalization of the 1962 liturgy: you would have us have little insidious doubts about the RIGHTFUL ASPIRATION (to quote John Paul II) to the 1962 liturgy.

 

[reggieM]

I find you all too similar to the typical opponent of the liberalization of the 1962 liturgy: you would have us have little insidious doubts about the RIGHTFUL ASPIRATION (to quote John Paul II) to the 1962 liturgy.

I’m similar to the opponents of liberalization? I guess that’s true. I oppose the separation (Cardinal Hoyos’ term) of the SSPX if that’s what you mean.

No, I don’t oppose the rulings of the Popes. I accept them for what they are. As it stands, priests in the United States require permission from bishops to celebrate the 1962 Missal. Why is that? I’ll assume that you support that legislation fully and do not want it to change, since it has been supported by the past 2 Popes.

Perhaps you believe that the 1962 Missal should be blocked by bishops also, as it has been for decades. That also is supported by the rulings of the Popes and the Ecclesia Dei commission.

 

[AlexV]

No priest in the United States may use the vernacular except with permission. The vernacular has the same legal status as the Tridentine Mass: Indult.

Except, again, for the PAA, for whom it is the proper rite, with no such thing as an indult.

Currently the 1962 Missal is more common than the 2002 in the USA. The vast majority of US parishes are using a 1985 translation of the 1975 Missal, with a booklet of some supplementary material published in 1996.

Breviary? Even better. TWENTY-TWO years after a new one, Americans are still using a 1975 translation of the 1971 original.

 

[reggieM]

No priest in the United States may use the vernacular except with permission.

No priest may celebrate any Mass without permission.

The vernacular has the same legal status as the Tridentine Mass: Indult.

Actually, that’s not correct. The use of the vernacular is granted via Canon Law - it’s not an indult. Permission to use the vernacular is assumed in every Catholic diocese in the world, as granted by Canon Law. The same is not true of the use of the 1962 Missal.

Except, again, for the PAA, for whom it is the proper rite, with no such thing as an indult.

Except, again, for the Novus Ordo Mass in Latin, which you’re implying maintains a different status in the law of the Church than does the non-PAA indult.

How many parishes in the United States are using the 2002 Missal? (I trust you know that number since you just quoted a statistic using it).

 

[AlexV]

The vernacular existed long before the 1983 Code of Canon Law. You keep bringing up the CIC, though it’s actual relevance to liturgical law is minimal.

A bishop could forbid ALL vernacular Masses in his territory.

He could not forbid a Roman Rite priest from using Latin, which is the universal norm.

 

[Rykell]

A bishop could forbid ALL vernacular Masses in his territory. *
But he will never do so, per the GIRM. See below.*

He could not forbid a Roman Rite priest from using Latin, which is the universal norm. Indeed he could, for no priest can impose a latin mass on the congregation of his own accord without the permission of the Bishop.

As ReggieM noted elsewhere, there is a lot of misinformation being disseminated in this forum that is detrimental to the simple faith of others.

usccb.org/liturgy/current/preamble.shtml#tradition

1. Therefore, when the Second Vatican Council convened in order to accommodate the Church to the requirements of her proper apostolic office precisely in these times, it examined thoroughly, as had Trent, the instructive and pastoral character of the Sacred Liturgy.15 Since no Catholic would now deny the lawfulness and efficacy of a sacred rite celebrated in Latin, the Council was also able to grant that “the use of the vernacular language may frequently be of great advantage to the people” and gave the faculty for its use.

16 The enthusiasm in response to this measure has been so great everywhere that it has led, under the leadership of the Bishops and the Apostolic See itself, to permission for all liturgical celebrations in which the people participate to be in the vernacular, for the sake of a better comprehension of the mystery being celebrated.

 

[AlexV]

Permission, however blanket, does not EXCLUDE Latin.

NO ONE can prohibit a Latin Rite priest from using the 2002 Missal, IN LATIN. This applies even to the FSSP, for example…NO AUTHORITY can ban the use of the NORMATIVE (for those who are so enamored of that word), typical edition of the Missal.

 

[Rykell]

16 The enthusiasm in response to this measure has been so great everywhere that it has led, under the leadership of the Bishops and the Apostolic See itself, to permission for all liturgical celebrations in which the people participate to be in the vernacular, for the sake of a better comprehension of the mystery being celebrated.

Alex, for the life of me I cannot understand why you are so arbitrarily clinging to this. May I have a source that they do not need the bishop’s permission to offer a regular Sunday liturgy for the people in latin?

A priest, AND his bishop will follow the regulations of the GIRM, which are clearly stated above. They may celebrate a single latin N.O. in their parish provided it is stated in the bulletin and done with permission, but all other masses are in the vernacular, the “normative” liturgy of the people.

I hear you saying that any priest can simply decide at will to do his own thing and decide to use latin, without any notice, permission, appropriate missals in the pews, etc. :nope:

 

[AlexV]

Latin is the language of our Rite, and no bishop can “ban” its use, any more than he could decide a priest can’t use the Roman Canon in his diocese.

 

[Rykell]

I certainly think people are beginning to see through your smoke screens. No source, huh? Just … “I say what I say, and it’s right!”

 

[AlexV]

I don’t do people’s research for them…

These boards have a few people who think there’s a convenient little card catalogue with magisterial pronouncements we consult about every possible eventuality.

Such is the result, incidentally, of the collapse of catechesis in our day.

Once upon a time every Roman Catholic KNEW that Latin was our language, and that a priest didn’t need “permission” to use it.

We’re not talking 1962 Missal. We’re talking 2002.

The “permission”, technically, is needed to use the 1985 translation of the 1975 Missal most USA parishes currently use. Enjoy your outdated liturgy…

 

[AJV]

May I have a source that they do not need the bishop’s permission to offer a regular Sunday liturgy for the people in latin?

A priest, AND his bishop will follow the regulations of the GIRM, which are clearly stated above. They may celebrate a single latin N.O. in their parish provided it is stated in the bulletin and done with permission, but all other masses are in the vernacular, the “normative” liturgy of the people.

I hear you saying that any priest can simply decide at will to do his own thing and decide to use latin, without any notice, permission, appropriate missals in the pews, etc. :nope:

There is no source saying that they do. The GIRM points out that permission has been granted for all liturgies to be in the vernacular. The permission is for the vernacular and the reason it says all liturgies is because prior to 1970 when the Prooemium was written it was not permissible for all liturgies.

Canon Law envisions the Latin as an alternative I think- you could ask any Canon lawyers in your diocese. Or perhaps the ones on the Forums will chime in.

Can. 928 The Eucharistic celebration is to be carried out in the Latin language or in another language provided that the liturgical texts have been legitimately approved.

The commentary "An Introduction to Canon Law interprets this as saying that the Eucharist “may be celebrated in Latin or the language of the people.”

Moreover even within the GIRM there are many references to Latin or partly Latin. For example the direction that the Graduale may be used as an option. There is no vernacular Graduale AFAIK.Also the Instruction that the faithful should know certain Latin chants which in the footnotes refers to Sacrosanctum Concillium.

In 1979, the publication Notitiae listed a series of language (350 I think) approved for vernacular celebration. I think that in that document it was also noted about the Latin being used everywhere.

The Latin edition of the missal is always the typical edition. Meaning that it may be used lawfully throughout the Latin rite.

 

[Rykell]

AJV:

Rykell:

May I have a source that they do not

need the bishop’s permission to offer a regular Sunday liturgy for the people in latin?
There is no source saying that they do. The GIRM points out that permission has been granted for all liturgies to be in the vernacular. The permission is for the vernacular and the reason it says all liturgies is because prior to 1970 when the Proemium was written it was not permissible for all liturgies.

Canon Law envisions the Latin as an alternative I think-

Maybe you are correct that there is no public written source that one of us may locate on line to prove one’s point. Any communication between a bishop and his pastors would not be public information that any of us is able to access.

However, the bishops are the legislators of liturgy for their dioceses, and I do not believe that any priest under obedience to his bishop would simply decide to celebrate a full latin mass with his congregation, solely due to capriciousness, unannounced, and without any preparedness for his parish — especially in light of the GIRM statement above concerning the vernacular. No way! [Though I suppose a miniscule minority might attempt it once or twice.]

I don’t dispute your argument that it MAY be offered in latin [as the “alternative” you mentioned], but I still believe my first sentence above has an important bearing on this fictitious situation. I agree that if he wishes to, a priest may celebrate a latin mass privately with a few devotees, but not as outlined above without permission.

The Latin edition of the missal is always the typical edition. Meaning that it may be used lawfully throughout the Latin rite.

Yes, it may be lawful, but that is not what we are debating … that permissions are still needed. Isn’t that the bane of the TLM people in wanting the Motu Proprio? That permissions are not given? Would they not also be required for a N.O.entirely in latin? As you said, we just don’t know since there is no “source,” and therefore my point stands.