Members of the SSPX are not heretics

[AlexV]

Rykell’s view is NOT Catholic.

Not at all.

The LATIN Editio Typica Missalis Romani is the NORM.

Notice the real agenda here: it’s not just Novus Ordo in favor of Tridentine. Now it’s the VERNACULAR is the NORM, while the Latin isn’t. We’ve moved light years beyond the original point of these arguments, namely the place of the 1962 liturgy.

The GIRM does NOT state that the vernacular is suddenly normative and Latin the exception that proves the rule.

Latin needs no permission. Rykell has prevaricated to the position that Latin is “lawful” (how generous of you, Rykell), but that it somehow…like a second-class citizen perhaps?..requires “permission”, as opposed to that good old NORMATIVE vernacular that needs no permission.

False, and in ignorance of the fact that…VOILA…

EVERY LITURGICAL BOOK PRINTED, INCLUDING THE MISSAL, INCLUDES THE LATIN WORDS STATIM VIGERE INCIPIAT…“it may begin to be vigorous”, i.e., to be in effect, etc…AS SOON AS IT IS PUBLISHED.

The Latin is usable the moment it is printed. UNIVERSALLY, and with no permission. ROME has given the permission. Read the preface to each new liturgical book.

Rykell needs to learn how to read liturgical documents. The GIRM says there is PERMISSION for the vernacular…it does NOT say the liturgy MUST be vernacular, BARRING SPECIAL PERMISSION for Latin…Latin is ASSUMED as the norm, because we are the Latin Rite, and no special permission is needed for the CURRENT Latin books.

 

[Rykell]

Alex, you are highly skilled at spinning truth, but people can read, and they can consult their bishops who are the legislators of liturgy in every diocese, and if that proves to be insufficient, they can write to the Holy See, if there is any doubt about the interpretation of the GIRM.

By stating that latin is the norm, you do not validate its use as being the norm, since the vernacular is used in every parish in the USA, and common attendance would quickly put to rest this false assertion. Nobody really cares, except for some traditionalists who love latin. No problem, to each his own.

BARRING SPECIAL PERMISSION for Latin…Latin is ASSUMED as the norm, because we are the Latin Rite, and no special permission is needed for the CURRENT Latin books.

Assume indeed, and it is a false assumption.

(Not to mention the utter lack of charity stating that I am not Catholic, as well as your other sarcasm)

 

[AlexV]

I said your VIEW was not Catholic. Don’t lie, Rykell. Don’t prevaricate.

Every parish in the Roman Rite in the USA does NOT use the vernacular. There are Tridentine parishes. Don’t overstate your collapsing case.

As for Novus Ordo parishes, what happens in the vast majority IS IRRELEVANT. Even if no parish in the country used the 2002 Latin Missal, it wouldn’t change the POINT of this argument…THAT NO PRIEST NEEDS SPECIAL PERMISSION TO USE THE TYPICAL EDITION OF THE BOOKS OF HIS RITE, CURRENT PRINTINGS, which of the Missal = 2002.

You’re the one spinning, prevaricating, painting yourself into a corner, and otherwise arguing a point YOU CONCEDED yesterday just for the sake of…argument?

Latin IS the NORM of the Roman Rite, and needs NO permission, so long as the current books are used.

As for bishops, they are indeed liturgical legislators…they do NOT override the Holy See, and when any liturgical book is issued in a new edition, it says the Latin can be used instantly, while the vernacular, obviously, must wait until it’s been prepared.

It doesn’t say “And your local bishop must approve the use of the Latin…” It is the RIGHT of every Roman Rite priest.

 

[Ham1]

Calm down, guys…

Rykell,

The quotation that you posted:

“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.”

Seems to indicate that a “permission” is being universally granted to offer the Mass in the vernacular. The use of the word permission here indicates that the norm is the Mass in Latin (since it is the official language of the Church). If the norm was changed to the vernacular, then they wouldn’t issue “permission” because they wouldn’t need to. Also, they cannot really change the norm to the vernacular because then the issue of what is the original language of the Mass would become a problem. It is important that the Mass of the Church is one and that it is in the official language of the Church. Then all translations stem from that one original Mass with permission.

So, basically, the Mass was written in Latin. Then universal permission was granted by the Church to offer the Mass in the vernacular. You might say that even offering the Mass in the vernacular is strongly encouraged. But, the Mass in Latin is still an entirely valid option for any priest of the roman Church.

Now pastorally, the bishop may discourage his priests from celebrating in the Mass in Latin because of the clear encouragement by the Vatican to say Mass in the vernacular. But still the priest (as a priest of the Roman Church) retains the right to say Mass according to the rite of the Roman Church. An english speaking priest no more needs permission to say the Mass in Latin than he does to say the Mass in spanish.

 

[Unitas]

Seems to indicate that a “permission” is being universally granted to offer the Mass in the vernacular. The use of the word permission here indicates that the norm is the Mass in Latin (since it is the official language of the Church). If the norm was changed to the vernacular, then they wouldn’t issue “permission” because they wouldn’t need to

Exactly my point, thank you.

The fact that SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM came out before the end of the council is telling; Described there are the guidelines set by Paul VI as to how the reforms of the mass are to be implimented.

What we have now, in practice, and what was described in Paul VI’s document are obviously two different things. It’s not just the issue of latin that’s being ignored from this document, but many others as well.

However you slice it, Latin is the rule, and the vernacular is the exception. Just because people ignore this fact doesn’t change the fact itself.

 

[oneelbk]

Bishop Williamson and many other SSPXers believe that canonizations are not infallible. That is heretical.

Indeed, as noted (ironically) by our friends in the sedevacantist camp, look atwhat no less a saint than St. Thomas said (and if canonizations are not infallible, then how can we know of any saint being really a saint, including St. Thomas? If canonizations are not infallible, then someone’s being a saint is simply a matter of preference or opinion? That may be a comfortable option for the SSPX, but not for a true Catholic).

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, “Beatification,” 1907, p. 366: “In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas says: ‘Since the honor we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints, we must piously believe that in this matter also the Church is not liable to error.”

Then there is this:

St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection, 1759, p. 23:“To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.”

St. Francis De Sales: (+1602): “…to say the Church errs is to say no less that God errs, or else that He is willing and desirous for us to err; which would be a great blasphemy.” (The Catholic Controversy, p. 70.)

When a Pope canonizes a Saint, he speaks from the Chair of Peter (ex cathedra).

To deny something that a Pope proclaims on Faith with this formula is outright heresy.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4:
“[We] teach and explain that the dogma has been divinely revealed, that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when [1) carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority [2] he explains a doctrine of faith or morals [3] to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable. But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 1839)

A Canonization is an ex cathedra (infallible) pronouncement because it fulfills the three conditions required for a Pope to speak infallibly, as defined by Vatican I above. The three conditions are as follows:

1. Speaking as Supreme Pastor in Virtue of Apostolic Authority – When a Pope Canonizes a Saint, he speaks as Supreme Pastor and in virtue of his apostolic authority, which is the first requirement for an ex cathedra pronouncement.
2. Faith or morals – When a Pope Canonizes a Saint, he speaks on a point of faith, which is the second requirement for an ex cathedra pronouncement.
3. To Be Held by the Universal Church – A Canonization is to be held by the universal Church because the Pope explicitly says so in canonizing. He says: “…we establish that in the whole Church he [x] should be devoutly honored among the Saints.” In Canonizing, the Pope further “declares and defines” that the Saint is in heaven, which demonstrates that the declaration and definition is binding on the Church. Thus, Canonizations fulfill the third and final requirement for an ex cathedra pronouncement.

Thus, a Canonization is unquestionably an ex cathedra (infallible) declaration, as the Saints above attest to. To obstinately call it into question is a mortal sin against faith; it is heresy; it is a denial of Papal Infallibility; and it is a denial of the indefectibility of the Catholic Church, as the above Saints and Doctors of the Church – including St. Bonaventure, St. Robert, St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas Aquinas – confirm. And it should be noted that even if one or more of these Saints did teach that Canonizations were fallible (which they didn’t), it wouldn’t change the fact that Canonizations are infallible because it is a demonstrable fact that Canonizations are ex cathedra pronouncements when declared with the form above.

 

[reggieM]

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

The bishop therefore could require all priests to celebrate Mass using the vernacular. He also could require that priests must have permission to use Latin.

The ordinary of the diocese is granted the authority to regulate the liturgical celebrations in his diocese within the powers that are granted to him.

For example, if a bishop assigns a priest to celebrate Mass in the Spanish language for a community, the priest is not free to use English or Latin on his own decision. He needs permission.

The bishop has the right to forbid the use of Latin in the Novus Ordo. Some would argue that he could mandate the use of the vernacular in the 1962 Missal also and canonically, he would win that since Vatican II granted the use of vernacular.

 

[AlexV]

Totally false…and once again, the provocateur returns.

First of all, an ordinary is limited by UNIVERSAL RIIGHTS (i.e., what ALL Roman Rite priests may do). A priest of the Roman Rite does not have a universal right to the vernacular. He has a RIGHT to Latin. NO BISHOP can forbid this, anymore than a bishop could tell him “You may never use the Roman Canon in my diocese.”

Of course he can’t say that. The Roman Canon is a universal right.

“Extent” in the cited rubric does not refer to the NORM, but to the EXCEPTION to the rule, i.e., the vernacular. Even if every parish in the USA uses English, the NORM remains Latin.

As for the 1962 Missal, the rubrics do NOT allow the vernacular except in very specific, very limited circumstances (i.e., renewal of baptismal promises at the Paschal Vigil).

Only the PCED handles 1962 Missal issues. And they have issued NO instruction that changes those rubrics, only a 1991 document that outlined OPTIONAL modifications. No mention was made of the vernacular.

Only someone incredibly ignorant of Canon Law would think a bishop could press a suit for a non-existent rule to be imposed.

An ordinary is not a competent authority to alter the 1962 rubrics. Only the PCED, the pope’s official delegate commission for those matters, can touch it.

As for the 2002 Missal, like ALL new liturgical books, it says the Latin can be used as soon as the book appears. Period.

 

[reggieM]

An english speaking priest no more needs permission to say the Mass in Latin than he does to say the Mass in spanish.

If you mean he can leave the diocese and go off and say Mass any way he wants – yes, that’s true.

But a priest requires permission from his bishop to say Mass, in the first place. After that, he requires permission to say Mass in a specific parish. After that, he is bound by obedience to conform to the liturgical decisions given by his bishop (as long as they conform to the law, as does the use of the vernacular).

So, except where bishops have given a blanket permission to use whatever language one wants, or where bishops have said that Latin is the liturgical standard language and bishops need permission for vernacular – every priest needs permission from the bishop to celebrate Mass in Latin. The bishop is authorized to demand that permission.

Priests that disobey and offer Mass in Latin as against the direction of their bishop are subject to discipline as granted by the law of the Church.

Bottom line – bishops can mandate the use of the vernacular. Neither are they ever required to permit a Latin language Mass (although that may change if the rumored Motu Propio is published).

 

[reggieM]

Bishops are granted the power to regulate the liturgy in their diocese. That is granted to them by Canon Law. They can demand that their priest celebrate Mass in the vernacular. Canon Law permits them to determine that.

The priest does not have the right to oppose his bishop in liturgical matters where the bishop has authority.

Priests have been suspended for much less than defying the bishop’s command with regard to the liturgy.

 

[AlexV]

No Roman priest can be compelled NOT to use the 2002 LATIN TYPICAL EDITIONS of the liturgical books.

Incidentally, this question came up when someone asked the Curia if an INDULT priest could use the 2002 books.

The answer was clear. NO ROMAN PRIEST can be forbidden. They are his by universal right.

I’d love to see the first “disciplinary” action for using the TYPICAL EDITION of the Missal.

Is this how sick we are now? We now talk “discipline” for those who use the NORMATIVE MISSAL, to use a favorite word of some?

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

And NO Roman bishop can forbid its use. It’s not under his prerogative to do so.

And Canon Law does NOT demand that the EXCEPTION to the rule must be followed to the EXCLUSION of Latin. The rubrics and canons cited refer to permission to use the exception, NOT assertions that one can BAN the norm.

Can a bishop ban the Roman Canon? Answer the question.

(Answer: Of course not. Bishops are not gods. They do not have unlimited liturgical power. They have power within certain limits, and one of those limits is they cannot “ban” universal rights. And the use of Latin is one of them.)

 

[reggieM]

An ordinary is not a competent authority to alter the 1962 rubrics

I appreciate your opinion, but it would be more helpful to have a legislative document that states the same. I haven’t seen one, myself. How about the use of permanent deacons in the 1962 liturgy? Is the ordinary competent to decide if they are permitted or not? What do the rubrics of the Missal say about that?

 

[AlexV]

Don’t be a prevaricator.

You know perfectly well the documents from the PCED talk about the 1962 Missal and not mixing rites and usages.

You know perfectly well the 1962 rubrics don’t explicitly “ban” permanent deacons, and simply refer to “diaconi” = deacons.

You further know that Roman law doesn’t allow you to do something just because a document doesn’t say you can’t.

 

[reggieM]

I’d love to see the first “disciplinary” action for using the TYPICAL EDITION of the Missal.

You seem quite young enough not to have seen much disciplinary action against priests. That’s good – it’s best that way. But believe me, I’ve seen many priests suspended or at least disciplined for much less.

It’s important not to approach Canon Law through our own American/British law understanding, where we look at the text and see precedents.

Canon Law is as much about the will of the legislator and the intent as it is about the written law. Some will say that makes it arbitrary and unfair – and it can seem that way.

But justice in the Church is different than civil justice – it should be higher justice. But the goal is the good of the whole Church. Very often, innocent people suffer at the hands of Church law because God is using decisions for a higher purpose. It seems unfair and unjust – but that’s from our perspective.

But yes, basically, priests can be suspended for not obeying their bishop where he has the authority. Does the priest have the universal right to celebrate Mass? No, that right is contingent – he must have faculties.

It seems unfair, but that’s the way the discipline of the Church works. It also seems strange because we’ve seen so much disobedience that has gone unpunished and so much injustice. But it is meant to be a system of discipline and obedience for priests.

They can’t just run off and start their own independent group simply because they don’t want to celebrate the Novus Ordo

 

[AlexV]

I am far more familiar with Canon Law than you realize.

That said, let’s review your errors.

1. No priest of the Roman Rite can be banned from using the 2002 Missale Romanum.
2. No bishop can suspend, discipline, or otherwise sanction a priest for using the normative books of his Rite.
3. No bishop can ban universal options of his Rite (you never did answer the Roman Canon question…wise of you).

You keep mentioning the 1962 liturgy. Irrelevant to this issue. Then again, this topic is irrelevant to this thread, but as long as you post your increasingly demented views (and it IS demented to talk about suspending priests because they used the official language of their Rite, in the official Missal of their Rite) – Latin demens = mindless.

Don’t lecture me on fairness. We’re talking objective fact. A bishop can’t ban universal options. And the vernacular is the exception, not the standard.

 

[reggieM]

As I said, Communion in the hand is permitted in the 1962 liturgy. The comment “no mixing of the rites” is extremely vague. Can hosts consecrated at the Novus Ordo be used in the Tridentine Mass? Can a chasuble designed for the Novus Ordo be used for the 1962 Missal? Can sacred music written for the current rite be mixed with the 1962 rite?

There is some argument about whether the 1962 liturgy is a “rite” in itself anyway. There are other aspects which are not bound by rubrics – there is nothing in the 1962 Missal for example that says the vernacular readings must be done by clerics, or that they can’t be done simultaneous with the Latin.

There are lots and lots of things like that. There is no current liturgical legislation for the 1962 Missal.

Much of it is done by custom or various local traditions that survived. That’s fine, but someone can come along and challenge it and there is no law to give a final decision.

Communion in the hand (in the 1962 Missal) was challenged by a priest who wanted to use it and it was permitted by Rome.

I am sure the SSPX would be quite concerned about having married clergy assisting at the Tridentine Mass, especially since they don’t ordain permanent deacons, but yes it is correct that deacons are permitted to do so.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I appreciate your opinion, but it would be more helpful to have a legislative document that states the same. I haven’t seen one, myself. How about the use of permanent deacons in the 1962 liturgy? Is the ordinary competent to decide if they are permitted or not? What do the rubrics of the Missal say about that?

Reggie:

I’m completely astonished to be finding myself saying this, but I tend to think Alex is correct. There is nothing in canon/liturgical law that prevents any priest from getting up one morning and saying the regular 10:00 AM Novus Ordo Mass in Latin. Your point that the bishop has to grant faculties is true, allow them to use a church/altar, etc. and so could keep them from saying Mass in Latin are true, but that only goes toward how a bishop may persuade or coerce a certain priest to comply with the bishop’s desire. He couldn’t haul a priest up before him and say, “Now, Father, I’m going to punish you for saying the Pauline Mass in Latin,” but he could say (provided the priest is not an appointed pastor, which gives him certain canonical rights, for a period of time), “You know, Father, I think your talents are wasted at the Basilica of the Holy Cross. I’m going to appoint you as a prison chaplain. I know you’ll make us proud!”, etc. That’s why many priests are named (for good or ill) “parish administrators” instead of “pastors.” It’s not crystal clear, but he probably could get away with overtly punishing him for saying the TLM without permission, but not the NO in Latin.

 

[reggieM]

You’re suggesting that a priest is not required to obey the liturgical decisions of his bishop. That the bishop has no authority to regulate the liturgy within the laws granted to him by Canon Law. Is that correct?

I didn’t think I was lecturing you on fairness, but I’ll stop doing whatever it is you didn’t want me to do.

 

[AlexV]

Can hosts consecrated at the Novus Ordo be used in the Tridentine Mass?

—Give me a break. Mixing rites does not IN ANY WAY mean the confected Holy Eucharist, which isn’t a rite, but a sacrament and the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. You really do want Rome to spell every crack in the sidewalk out, don’t you?

Can a chasuble designed for the Novus Ordo be used for the 1962 Missal? Can sacred music written for the current rite be mixed with the 1962 rite?

—1962 rubrics do not say a word about how chasubles should be designed. They DO say plenty about music that is allowed and not allowed.

There is some argument about whether the 1962 liturgy is a “rite” in itself anyway.

–PCED refers to it as a “rite”. Next question?

There are other aspects which are not bound by rubrics – there is nothing in the 1962 Missal for example that says the vernacular readings must be done by clerics, or that they can’t be done simultaneous with the Latin.

–Correct. So? Incidentally, some countries DID have rubrics governing this in 1962.

There are lots and lots of things like that. There is no current liturgical legislation for the 1962 Missal.

–ABSOLUTELY FALSE. The PCED handles the Missal, Period.

Much of it is done by custom or various local traditions that survived. That’s fine, but someone can come along and challenge it and there is no law to give a final decision.

–False. Utterly false. Absolutely false. The PCED has jurisdiction, not to mention Bishop RIfan’s PAA for his subjects.

Communion in the hand (in the 1962 Missal) was challenged by a priest who wanted to use it and it was permitted by Rome.

–Proof? Oh, a private letter. Sorry. What matters are juridical statements, Mr. Legalist.

 

[AlexV]

For the umpteenth time:

A bishop cannot ban universal options. That isn’t granted to him by anyone.

Answer the question, ReggieM. Can a local ordinary order a priest not to use the Roman Canon? Don’t prevaricate. Yes or no. Can he forbid a priest from using Eucharistic Prayer I?