Members of the SSPX are not heretics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ace86
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s evidence of the atrocious state of liturgical catechesis these days that someone might actually think a priest of the Roman Rite needs permission to use the TYPICAL EDITION of the liturgical books of his Rite.

The Latin Missal of 2002 needs NO permission.

Sheesh, even Vatican II makes clear the status of Latin.

All the “critics” on this forum would have us feel slightly uneasy, nervous, worried, or otherwise discomfited about things like LATIN…EVEN in the 2002 Missal.

It needs ZERO permission. No priest should have any scruple about using it…he needs no permission. PUBLIC or private. Rykell’s points are wrong and, interestingly, help show his true colors: even the 2002 Missal, if in Latin, is something less than seemly…it needs “permission”.

Sorry. It doesn’t.
 
Like I asked, and will repeat again …

Where is your proof that one can arbitrarily impose it upon a congregation unannounced at will?

And Vatican II was almost forty years before the GIRM revision above. Funny how you so many quote, “the GIRM says this and that” when it suits one’s purpose, but when I pull a statement concerning the vernacular which is precisely and clearly stated, you revert back to Vatican II which predates it.
:rolleyes:
 
IT’S THE LANGUAGE OF OUR RITE.

It’s the NORM of our Rite.

It’s the UNIVERSAL TREASURE of our Rite.

It’s the STANDARD of our Rite.

The PROPER lanaguage of a Rite requires ZERO permission.

I suggest you find a new issue to carp about. We’re not talking the 1962 Missal here. We’re talking the TYPICAL EDITION for the Roman Rite, 2002.

You’ve started an argument you won’t win, Rykell. Only an insidious enemy of tradition would talk about “imposing” (a word with negative connotations) that which belongs to ALL Roman Catholics…Latin.
 
Ridiculous argumentation. I will bet that I can attend any parish in the entire USA on any given Sunday, and not find it celebrated in latin. And if it is apt to be, the outside bulletin would clearly state it. The mass is in the vernacular period … everywhere …

Except for the TLM and rare exceptions where the N.O. is celebrated in latin.

I have no desire to win an argument that is already obvious to every Catholic who goes to mass.
 
Just because something is done incredibly rarely does not change liturgical reality.

I am WELL aware of how few churches use the 2002 Missal…and we’re talking 2002, I repeat, NOT 1962.

Doesn’t matter if 1 church in the country uses it, or none. It remains the TYPICAL edition for the country, and needs NO permission.

It’s truly sick that liturgical catechesis has reached such a state of oblivion that people feel the LANGUAGE OF OUR RITE, in the REVISED BOOKS of the Council, need “permission”.

Congratulations, Bugnini. You won.
 
Bishop Rifan specifically cited Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis; Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Neb.; Bishop Thomas Doran of Rockford, Ill.; and Bishop Álvaro Corrada, SJ, of Tyler, Texas, as having been generous in the Ecclesia Dei indult application, as requested and emphasized repeatedly by the late Pope John Paul II.
Click to expand...
Bear, I don’t follow your point, for this article seems to point to the TLM. That is not what we are discussing above. :confused:
 
Alex,

I am certainly not arguing lawfulness, only application. No priest in my opinion is going to do this unannounced, even if it is lawful, without preparing his people ahead of time.

Let’s drop it. You are not hearing me. It has nothing to do with catechesis whatsoever.
 
Rykell said:
Bear, I don’t follow your point, for this article seems to point to the TLM. That is not what we are discussing above. :confused:
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you are talking about. If you look at the quote I gave you should see that Bishop Bruskewitz said this in that article:
I do have a blanket permission for any priest who wants to celebrate the Novus Ordo in Latin,
Click to expand...
 
Point made. It’s LAWFUL. That’s what matters. I quite agree 99.9% of priests today won’t be doing it tomorrow.

Then again, in 1977 most priests figured the Tridentine Missal was dead and buried except for a few SSPX types. My how times have changed.
 
Ok, Bear, I missed it the first time due to its length. I still don’t see your point though, for he is a traditional bishop in a very traditional diocese, and may lawfully give the said permission.

I have often stated that bishops are the legislators of liturgy in their dioceses, and if this bishop saw a need to give “permission” it would suggest along with my contention, that “permissions” ARE needed. And the rest of the USA bishops would have to do likewise.

Thanks! 😃
 
No permission is required to use the current TYPICAL liturgical books of one’s Rite.

The 2002 Missal, in Latin, needs no permission.

Make up your mind, Rykell. I’m not surprised you’re really not “done” with this issue.
 
Alex is right here. The official language of the Church is latin and the official rite of the liturgy of the Church can always be said in the official language.
 
Rykell said:
Ok, Bear, I missed it the first time due to its length. I still don’t see your point though, for he is a traditional bishop in a very traditional diocese, and may lawfully give the said permission.

I have often stated that bishops are the legislators of liturgy in their dioceses, and if this bishop saw a need to give “permission” it would suggest along with my contention, that “permissions” ARE needed. And the rest of the USA bishops would have to do likewise.

Thanks! 😃
Click to expand...
Let’s see, if I’ve been following this right, you asked for proof that they could say the Novus Ordo in Latin without permission. Alex then basically said you were ill catechized and that no permission was needed because it was the language of the Church but didn’t provide the proof you requested. I gave a quote from Bishop Bruskewitz saying that he gave blanket permission (showing that he believed permission was necessary) so, if you are wrong, you are in good company. Bishop Bruskewitz must be poorly catechized too!😉
 
Something interesting:
  1. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
Click to expand...
  1. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
Click to expand...
  1. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
Click to expand...
It seems here, in SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM that english is the exception, and latin is the rule. (As the use of latin is to be preserved in the latin rites) And one needs permission from the local bishop as to which parts of the mass are in the vernacular, not the other way around.

This is from Paul VI himself, btw.

Of course, there have been plenty of attempts to reign in the abuses going on in our churches that have remained unheeded.
 
You SSPX people keep on rockin’ ! These watered-down Vatican II indults kicked me out of the Backfence becuase I disagreed with them about how much of a disaster Vatican 2 has been. Traditional Catolicism is the ONLY Catholicism. There is no need to ‘reform’ Catholicism via Vatican 2. That is the same error Luther made. Truth is truth !!
 
I’m Soooo ahead of the curve!
I always follow
Roger Michael Cardinal Mahony

Because I know that sooner or later, in the future, his teachings will be accepted.
 
Important to note that Ecclesia Dei isn’t infallible.
Click to expand...
Neither is Humanae Vitae. Woo! Condoms for everyone!

Just a reducto ad absurdam. You know that non-infallibility doesn’t legitimize dissent.
 
BONES2 said:
You SSPX people keep on rockin’ ! These watered-down Vatican II indults kicked me out of the Backfence becuase I disagreed with them about how much of a disaster Vatican 2 has been. Traditional Catolicism is the ONLY Catholicism. There is no need to ‘reform’ Catholicism via Vatican 2. That is the same error Luther made. Truth is truth !!
Click to expand...
How exactly were you kicked out? In CAF, you can be banned, not exactly kicked out, and the fact that you are still here means you aren’t banned yet. Besides, the appropriate forum for Vatican II related topics is here, not the Backfence forums.
 
40.png
Unitas:
It seems here, in SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM that english is the exception, and latin is the rule. (As the use of latin is to be preserved in the latin rites) And one needs permission from the local bishop as to which parts of the mass are in the vernacular, not the other way around.
Click to expand...
No argument there, Unitas. Maybe you did not read back far enough in the thread to note my comment:

Funny how so many quote, “the GIRM says this and that” when it suits one’s purpose, but when I pull a statement concerning the vernacular [in the 2003 GIRM] which is precisely and clearly stated, you revert back to Vatican II which predates it.

Kindly look at the date in your comment above:

SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON DECEMBER 4, 1963

This is the problem with many in this forum. They love to quote that which serves their purpose. That’s like quoting the Council of Trent’s Quo Primum to render void Vatican II, and now the example above to render void the current mandate in the GIRM. I would like to reprint it one more time lest any have missed this:
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.
Click to expand...
The wording says “all” not “some”, and specifically mentions those in which the “people participate,” — the regular Sunday liturgy. Now if the vernacular is the norm as stated in the GIRM, then the exception is the latin, for which there must be permission to deviate, even though it is a lawful rite; albeit NOT the normative rite. I have never disputed that. The mind of the Church is clearly for better comprehension of the mystery being celebrated, and latin would obviously be the “exception.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top