No Rome/SSPX Accord

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dirt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
John_Grudzien said:
I only have one question…Why is it so difficult for those in charge of HMC to just grant us far wider use of the EF of the Mass…I do not try to deny others who approve whole-heartedly of the OF , why do they deny me?🤷
Click to expand...
That is a whole new issue. If the SSPX would reconcile with the Church, I would dare say that licit Mass would be much more available.
 
John_Grudzien said:
I only have one question…Why is it so difficult for those in charge of HMC to just grant us far wider use of the EF of the Mass…I do not try to deny others who approve whole-heartedly of the OF , why do they deny me?🤷
Click to expand...
Odd statements.

“Those in charge” are those selected by Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. You make it sound like some sort of Putsch or Coup de’tat had taken place.

It is almost magnanimous that you don’t try to deny others the Catholic Mass. Unfortunately, the bar for sainthood is a little bit higher than that.
 
Originally Posted by John Grudzien
I only have one question…Why is it so difficult for those in charge of HMC to just grant us far wider use of the EF of the Mass…I do not try to deny others who approve whole-heartedly of the OF , why do they deny me?
Click to expand...
Stylites said:
Odd statements.

“Those in charge” are those selected by Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. You make it sound like some sort of Putsch or Coup de’tat had taken place.

It is almost magnanimous that you don’t try to deny others the Catholic Mass. Unfortunately, the bar for sainthood is a little bit higher than that.
Click to expand...
It was a fair and honest question. How rude can you get?
 
Rich_C said:
It was a fair and honest question. How rude can you get?
Click to expand...
It would only have been fair and honest if John is asked for his permission to hold Mass. Otherwise, I can’t envision how claiming magnaminity in allowing a Mass is anything but odd.
 
Rich_C said:
It was a fair and honest question. How rude can you get?
Click to expand...
An honest question, yes, but not a fair question or one relevant to the thread. His statement shows he is not ‘inline’ with the Vatican or the Pope with regards to the OF. The ‘bar for sainthood’ is higher than a three year old stomping his foot and saying “but he gets what he wants!” and it is not rude to point this out. In fact, the use of the word ‘odd’ is very charitable. Sainthood does not come from demanding what we want, but from accepting what we are given.
 
Stylites said:
It would only have been fair and honest if John is asked for his permission to hold Mass. Otherwise, I can’t envision how claiming magnaminity in allowing a Mass is anything but odd.
Click to expand...
Edited “I don’t do this…why do people do it to me?” is colloquial. I’m sure no one here, including John, meant it literally. John seems to be saying he doesn’t wish to see anything denied the OF, and wishes it went both ways. I wish so, too.
 
JM3 said:
An honest question, yes, but not a fair question or one relevant to the thread.
Click to expand...
We could argue over the fairness of it. I won’t contest that it’s off topic, though I won’t go so far as irrelevent.
JM3 said:
His statement shows he is not ‘inline’ with the Vatican or the Pope with regards to the OF.
Click to expand...
Actually, wishing that the EF was available in more places is exactly ‘in line’ with the Holy Father’s recent statements on the matter.

You’re seeing it exactly backwards.
JM3 said:
The ‘bar for sainthood’ is higher than a three year old stomping his foot and saying “but he gets what he wants!”
Click to expand...
Excuse me, did I read this right? You’re saying that a Catholic who yearns for his ordinary would follow the Holy Father’s wishes sooner, and so much as expresses that feeling, is having a childish temper tantrum? What a leap.
JM3 said:
and it is not rude to point this out. In fact, the use of the word ‘odd’ is very charitable. Sainthood does not come from demanding what we want, but from accepting what we are given.
Click to expand...
Don’t you see that a saint would try to establish some rapport with a disappointed Catholic, perhaps offer sympathy and encouragement, and finally remind them that God is in control and that we should offer up our sufferings to expiate our own sins?

It’s great that you want to encourage others to be saints, but I suggest you re-read your post and try to lead by example first. I’ll do the same.
 
John_Grudzien said:
I only have one question…Why is it so difficult for those in charge of HMC to just grant us far wider use of the EF of the Mass…I do not try to deny others who approve whole-heartedly of the OF , why do they deny me?🤷
Click to expand...
The OF is the “ordinary” form, that is “regular” or “standard”. The EF is extraordinary and requires specific conditions to offer it: a stable group and clergy capable of it and who have sufficient availability.

That would suggest why it is not more widely available. Are there bishops restricting it for political reasons? No doubt. Are there bishops who simply don’t have the resources? No doubt about that as well. They first have to fill out their ordinary obligations. There is a priest shortage.

The Church in her wisdom has set out the circumstances for the EF. Might I suggest that if they are difficult to achieve perhaps the laity can play a greater role? First by assembling a stable group that is willing to invest time (and perhaps money); secondly, and most importantly, praying for more vocations. Not having sufficient priests, and priests so overworked that they race from Mass to Mass on Sundays (in our rural parish that means lots of driving) are perhaps the biggest obstacles.

I don’t think the Church is in fact denying you. I think she’s trying to do the best she can with what she has, recognizing that the obligation to the OF comes first.
 
OraLabora said:
I don’t think the Church is in fact denying you. I think she’s trying to do the best she can with what she has, recognizing that the obligation to the OF comes first.
Click to expand...
Well said. I think we forget sometimes that the Church is not a corporation where “the customer is always right.” I think you make a wise observation here.
 
Boulder257 said:
Well said. I think we forget sometimes that the Church is not a corporation where “the customer is always right.” I think you make a wise observation here.
Click to expand...
Yes, she put it well.

John, I’ll pray that God gives you access to the traditional Mass as soon as he wills. PM me if you want help finding one.
 
Rich_C said:
.

You’re seeing it exactly backwards.
Click to expand...
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html
There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.
Click to expand...
In conclusion, dear Brothers, I very much wish to stress that these new norms do not in any way lessen your own authority and responsibility, either for the liturgy or for the pastoral care of your faithful. Each Bishop, in fact, is the moderator of the liturgy in his own Diocese (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22: “Sacrae Liturgiae moderatio ab Ecclesiae auctoritate unice pendet quae quidem est apud Apostolicam Sedem et, ad normam iuris, apud Episcopum”).
Click to expand...
or, perhaps, you are? 🤷
 
pnewton said:
That is a whole new issue. If the SSPX would reconcile with the Church, I would dare say that licit Mass would be much more available.
Click to expand...
I’ve often speculated the same myself: I wonder sometimes if the lack of availability of the Tridentine Mass in churches in unity with the magisterium is a reaction to the continued position of the SSPX. I have no basis for this suspicion that I can articulate, it’s just a nagging thought, so please do not ask me to defend it.
 
odile53 said:
I’ve often speculated the same myself: I wonder sometimes if the lack of availability of the Tridentine Mass in churches in unity with the magisterium is a reaction to the continued position of the SSPX. I have no basis for this suspicion that I can articulate, it’s just a nagging thought, so please do not ask me to defend it.
Click to expand...
I do not think there is anything intentional or any reaction to the SSPX. Most priests do not desire to celebrate the older Mass, so they do not. There is not a lot of demand for it, so there is not a lot of need. If there were hundreds of more priests from the SSPX that did return to their ministry in the Church, then they would be a source of priests who desired to celebrate the old Mass.
 
Rich_C said:
Now, **here’s **where I had it backwards!

I’m sorry.
Click to expand...
No problem, you aren’t the first one. Someone else told me that my screen name sounded “feminine”.

Since this is the trad forum, bonus points for who has the correct translation 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top