Pushed to the SSPX

[pnewton]

With all respect, Brother JR, I don’t know of many trads who sit around wishing that the Ordinary Form was more like the Extraordinary Form. In fact I don’t know of any, off the top of my head. There are some who’d like the OF to go away entirely,…

I can see where the two ideas could become muddle. Certainly I believe that working to bring this liturgy to one’s parish or anywhere it is desired by the people is a laudable goal. My New Year’s Resolution is everytime I see someone like you make mention of such a desire is offer prayer for this desire of yours, and a special intention for brotherhrolf, as he has so eloquently put this desire in words here. Finally, I will pray for an end to every abuse that shows disrespect to the Body of our Lord and the authority of the Church.

 

[pnewton]

Excellent post 475, JReducation .

Ditto. It was very moving.

 

[ibkc]

I can see where the two ideas could become muddle. Certainly I believe that working to bring this liturgy to one’s parish or anywhere it is desired by the people is a laudable goal. My New Year’s Resolution is everytime I see someone like you make mention of such a desire is offer prayer for this desire of yours, and a special intention for brotherhrolf, as he has so eloquently put this desire in words here. Finally, I will pray for an end to every abuse that shows disrespect to the Body of our Lord and the authority of the Church.

Thank you, that is beautiful.

 

[JReducation]

I can see where the two ideas could become muddle. Certainly I believe that working to bring this liturgy to one’s parish or anywhere it is desired by the people is a laudable goal. My New Year’s Resolution is everytime I see someone like you make mention of such a desire is offer prayer for this desire of yours, and a special intention for brotherhrolf, as he has so eloquently put this desire in words here. Finally, I will pray for an end to every abuse that shows disrespect to the Body of our Lord and the authority of the Church.

The availability of the Extraordinary Form is a good thing. Hopefully, more priests and deacons will learn the form so that they can offer it to those who appreciate it. It is important to maintain a spiritual balance, to remember that the Roman Church has two forms and several rites too. Part of that balance is to believe and think as the Church believes and thinks. Both forms and all the rites are equally holy and equally efficacious.

I always worry when someone says that they want to run to the SSPX because they can’t find the Extraordinary Form in their parish. What worries me is not that I believe that the SSPX is an evil. There is something else at play here, that is more troublesome. Those who want to run to an SSPX chapel or an Anglican church, because they can only find an Ordinary Form mass are implying that the OF will not give them the holiness and graces that they need. This is very disconcerting, because it’s a statement about the holy mass. How can we justify making or implying such a thing about the mass?

Grace is a share in the Divine Life of Christ. Christ’s generosity is not dependent on man, it flows freely from his heart. Therefore, I must believe that Christ’s generosity is present and operant in both forms of the mass and the different rites, be they Roman rites or Eastern rites.

We do not shy away from an Orthodox Christian Divine Liturgy because it is lacking in grace. That would be heresy. We shy away from it, because of their tentative relationship with the Chair of Peter. There are two realities at play here: the reality of grace and communion with Peter. Even when the mass is celebrated in a less than desireable manner, grace is not absent and it is in full communion with Peter as long as the priest has valid orders and is licitly ordained. What needs to be corrected are the inappropriate things that the priest may allow. But the grace of God and the full communion with the Church is not in question.

I think that we confuse communion with observance of the rules. Observance of the rules is very important. Never understimate that. However, even when the rules are not observed, the communion is not broken. Communion is greater than rules. Communion is a spiritual unity or oneness between the priest and the successor of Peter. The Church looks for that spiritual unity above all things and then, after that is secured, she looks at observance of the rubrics. But it is not the rubrics that create the unity in the priesthood. It is grace and the authority of Peter. Both are necessary for that perfect communion for which we aspire and pray.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[yosupman]

In theory this is fine. But it shouldn’t divide people either. But once you’ve allowed all-vernacular all-the-time Masses and you have everyone trying to find a new niche in the Catholic marketplace, Children’s Masses, Gay Masses (yes, Gay Masses!), Clown Masses, Puppet Masses, Polka Masses, and other made-for-YouTube Masses unsurprisingly (at least to me) start testing the liturgical waters as well. Personally I’m okay with that, but is this what Vatican II was all about? Ecumenism? I don’t think so. Catholic means universal and we don’t seem to be headed there.

Pro-Vobis, are you saying you’d be ok with Clown, Puppet, Gay, Polka masses? You’re kidding me right? The authentic liturgical movement before Vatican II had nothing to do with “clown masses”. The authentic liturgical movement was not a movement of inovation. It was a movement of discovering the mass we already have, and learning to pray and live the mass. A book that I found helpfull was “Liturgical Piety” by Louis Bouyer.

 

[ibkc]

Those who want to run to an SSPX chapel or an Anglican church, because they can only find an Ordinary Form mass are implying that the OF will not give them the holiness and graces that they need. This is very disconcerting, because it’s a statement about the holy mass. How can we justify making or implying such a thing about the mass?

Br. JR, some of us believe that the external forms are important - very important., in fact. The laxness apparent in so many contemporary “Ordinary Form” churches is a major problem to people like myself, and looking at the history of Catholic liturgical practices, while deviations and novelties can be seen, this is really a unique period in history where actual irreverence and even disobedience is actually encouraged. All one has to do is read the GIRM carefully to see what is happening in many places. It’s all well and good to hold up “obedience” and “communion” as high virtues, because they are; but to say nothing when a wrong is seen is very, very bad. I do not think the Church would have lasted for 2,000 years had all followers taken a stance of total blind obedience at all times.

Further availability of the EF is needed, and reform is needed in the OF (or in the way it is interpreted). We really can’t afford to hide our heads in the sand about these things any longer.

 

[JReducation]

Br. JR, some of us believe that the external forms are important - very important., in fact. The laxness apparent in so many contemporary “Ordinary Form” churches is a major problem to people like myself, and looking at the history of Catholic liturgical practices, while deviations and novelties can be seen, this is really a unique period in history where actual irreverence and even disobedience is actually encouraged. All one has to do is read the GIRM carefully to see what is happening in many places. It’s all well and good to hold up “obedience” and “communion” as high virtues, because they are; but to say nothing when a wrong is seen is very, very bad. I do not think the Church would have lasted for 2,000 years had all followers taken a stance of total blind obedience at all times.

Further availability of the EF is needed, and reform is needed in the OF (or in the way it is interpreted). We really can’t afford to hide our heads in the sand about these things any longer.

I was not proposing hiding ones head in the sand. I do propose a more balanced approach to the problems and a humble approach instead of a demanding one. The men and women who have become the holiest members of the Church were very balanced and very humble at the same time. They had what the Scriptures refer to as Wisdom…

This Widsom is often lacking in people who are too eager to find fault on either side of the aisle. I believe that Teresa of Avila’s little bookmark said it best. No one knows who wrote it; but Teresa found it to be very useful in her own life and in her work to reform the Carmelite Order. . . . change the things we can, accept that things that we cannot change and the widom to know the difference.

Some peole want changes that cannot be made. Others want change at a rate that is not possible. Others want to remain in the status quo. All of these are unreasonable and inconsistent with true holiness.

As to the externals being important to some people, I understand that. But we must never forget that the Church is looking for validity, licaity and communion with Peter first and the externals second. We must be of the same mind as the Church. This does not mean that we do not work on the externals. Good grief, if that were the case so many saints would have been wasting their time in reforming religious orders, parishes, education systems and more. But the one thing that they always kept in mind was to think as the Church of their time thought. In other words, they always checked in with the Church hierarchy to make sure that what they wanted to do was acceptable.

I’m reminded of when Francis founded our order. He was going about his little way with no concerns. He and his brothers were happy. They were certainly holy. However, he realized that the Church of his time was going in what seemed to him the opposite direction of where he was going. So he went to Bishop Guido of Assisi. He asked the bishop if he was on the right track. The bishop was a very powerful and one may say, wordly man. But he gave Francis some very sound advice. He said, “I can protect you from everything except one, the label, heretic.” The bishop knew that many wanted to help the Church clean up her act. But many of those who tried had fallen into heresy.

He told Francis that he must avoid the label heretic at all cost, even if it meant changing his way of life and his beliefs. Francis, who was no dummy, accepted this piece of advice. He asked the bishop another question. He asked the bishop how he could be sure that he was not a heretic. The bishop did not point to the Magisterium, Tradition, and so forth. He pointed Francis to Rome. He told him this, “If the Holy Father blesses your effort and your life, then you can do what you can go forward without fear. Never do anything outside of Peter’s reach.” It was this piece of advice that drove Francis to Rome to visit Pope Innocent III. Pope Innocent told Francis that his way of life conformed to the Gospel, but not to the Church. Francis was confused. Did this mean that he had to choose between the Gospel and the Church?

There was a Cardinal at the pope’s court who would later become Pope Gregory IX… He volunteered to help Francis reconcile the two so that he could be faithful to both. Cardinal Hugolino reminded Francis that only interpretation and application of the Gospel that was truth was that of the Church. Therefore, he should always keep his choices within the direction of the pope and his bishops. He reminded Francis that there would be times when the bishops would not be able to provide the leadership that he needed, but he should always obey them, regardless. This was the attitude with which Francis entered the next stage of his life and how he went back and rewrote his rule so that it represented the Gospel the way that the Church authorities taught it.

The point is that what may appear as blind obedience is really not that at all. It is obedience filled with great love for the Lord and for the Church. It is obedience with great trust that the Lord and the Church want only what is good for us. It is obedience filled with a desire to make great sacrifices, beginning with sacrificing one’s desires, even one’s desires for perfection. Ironically, as one sacrificed one’s desires for perfection, one actually comes closer to perfection.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[bkovacs]

Br. JR, some of us believe that the external forms are important - very important., in fact. The laxness apparent in so many contemporary “Ordinary Form” churches is a major problem to people like myself, and looking at the history of Catholic liturgical practices, while deviations and novelties can be seen, this is really a unique period in history where actual irreverence and even disobedience is actually encouraged. All one has to do is read the GIRM carefully to see what is happening in many places. It’s all well and good to hold up “obedience” and “communion” as high virtues, because they are; but to say nothing when a wrong is seen is very, very bad. I do not think the Church would have lasted for 2,000 years had all followers taken a stance of total blind obedience at all times.

Further availability of the EF is needed, and reform is needed in the OF (or in the way it is interpreted). We really can’t afford to hide our heads in the sand about these things any longer.

I agree!.

 

[bkovacs]

I was not proposing hiding ones head in the sand. I do propose a more balanced approach to the problems and a humble approach instead of a demanding one. The men and women who have become the holiest members of the Church were very balanced and very humble at the same time. They had what the Scriptures refer to as Wisdom…

This Widsom is often lacking in people who are too eager to find fault on either side of the aisle. I believe that Teresa of Avila’s little bookmark said it best. No one knows who wrote it; but Teresa found it to be very useful in her own life and in her work to reform the Carmelite Order. . . . change the things we can, accept that things that we cannot change and the widom to know the difference.

Some peole want changes that cannot be made. Others want change at a rate that is not possible. Others want to remain in the status quo. All of these are unreasonable and inconsistent with true holiness.

As to the externals being important to some people, I understand that. But we must never forget that the Church is looking for validity, licaity and communion with Peter first and the externals second. We must be of the same mind as the Church. This does not mean that we do not work on the externals. Good grief, if that were the case so many saints would have been wasting their time in reforming religious orders, parishes, education systems and more. But the one thing that they always kept in mind was to think as the Church of their time thought. In other words, they always checked in with the Church hierarchy to make sure that what they wanted to do was acceptable.

I’m reminded of when Francis founded our order. He was going about his little way with no concerns. He and his brothers were happy. They were certainly holy. However, he realized that the Church of his time was going in what seemed to him the opposite direction of where he was going. So he went to Bishop Guido of Assisi. He asked the bishop if he was on the right track. The bishop was a very powerful and one may say, wordly man. But he gave Francis some very sound advice. He said, “I can protect you from everything except one, the label, heretic.” The bishop knew that many wanted to help the Church clean up her act. But many of those who tried had fallen into heresy.

He told Francis that he must avoid the label heretic at all cost, even if it meant changing his way of life and his beliefs. Francis, who was no dummy, accepted this piece of advice. He asked the bishop another question. He asked the bishop how he could be sure that he was not a heretic. The bishop did not point to the Magisterium, Tradition, and so forth. He pointed Francis to Rome. He told him this, “If the Holy Father blesses your effort and your life, then you can do what you can go forward without fear. Never do anything outside of Peter’s reach.” It was this piece of advice that drove Francis to Rome to visit Pope Innocent III. Pope Innocent told Francis that his way of life conformed to the Gospel, but not to the Church. Francis was confused. Did this mean that he had to choose between the Gospel and the Church?

There was a Cardinal at the pope’s court who would later become Pope Gregory IX… He volunteered to help Francis reconcile the two so that he could be faithful to both. Cardinal Hugolino reminded Francis that only interpretation and application of the Gospel that was truth was that of the Church. Therefore, he should always keep his choices within the direction of the pope and his bishops. He reminded Francis that there would be times when the bishops would not be able to provide the leadership that he needed, but he should always obey them, regardless. This was the attitude with which Francis entered the next stage of his life and how he went back and rewrote his rule so that it represented the Gospel the way that the Church authorities taught it.

The point is that what may appear as blind obedience is really not that at all. It is obedience filled with great love for the Lord and for the Church. It is obedience with great trust that the Lord and the Church want only what is good for us. It is obedience filled with a desire to make great sacrifices, beginning with sacrificing one’s desires, even one’s desires for perfection. Ironically, as one sacrificed one’s desires for perfection, one actually comes closer to perfection.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I think if St Francis and St Dominic were alive today, they would not be to happy and charitable with the Catholic Church in Europe right now. He would probably ask his Saracen friends to give him a hand with the godless atheism flooding Europe.

 

[JReducation]

I think if St Francis and St Dominic were alive today, they would not be to happy and charitable with the Catholic Church in Europe right now. He would probably ask his Saracen friends to give him a hand with the godless atheism flooding Europe.

Let’s not get carried away here. Europe, during the lifetime of Francis and Dominic, was not the most godly world. I think that there was a fear of the Church’s power. That fear kept many people towing the line. Pope Innocent and Honorius had a lot of temporal power.

I don’t believe that either of these great men would deviate from their teaching and their approach to the faithful. I can speak about Francis better than I can about Dominic. For one thing, Dominic never wrote a rule. Dominic did tell his Friar Preachers to remember that they must exercise great charity in all things, especially their preaching.

Francis did write a rule. His rule is very clear on questions about obedience to the local bishop, the pope, himself and his elected successors. He is very tough on this issue. He demands obedience, even when one knows that one is right. He was so serious about this that in his final words to the order he reminds us that we can forfeit our eternal souls if we fail to obey. Francis never left any room for doubts as to who was in charge of the order and the Church.

His second great teaching to his sons and daughters is about poverty. Francis included detachment from oneself, not only from material things, in his teachings on poverty.
Francis certainly taught great love for the Eucharist. There is no question about it. He also taught the importance of the entire liturgy: Eucharist and Hours. He loved the Sacraments and taught his brothers to love them and to teach others to love them.

If he were alive, these would be the messages that he would deliver today. The world still needs to learn about obedience, to detach from self and attach to Jesus and his Gospel, to draw closer to Christ in the Eucharist, Liturgy of the Hours and other Sacraments.

He would certainly remind both sides of the aisle to remain faithful to the Church, to the bishops, the Holy Father and to help evangelize the world. Francis was a great promoter of the lay evangelist. That’s why he founded a Secular Order. He wanted them to build a fraternity outside of the cloister. We need people to buid fraternity outside the cloister. The divisions among Catholics are contrary to the Gospel.

We have seen a contemporary Francis of Assisi and there is no lack of charity in her, Mother Teresa of Calcutta. There is no criticism of the Church, her bishops or a condemnation of one side for being too right or too left. Teresa of Calcutta preached a universal call to love Jesus. She did so in a very Franciscan manner, through her example.

Here is an interesting aside, if you will. We founded a new community, the Franciscan Brothers of Life. The community’s mission is to spread the Gospel of Life while living in the same manner as St. Francis lived. What has been most interesting in our experience is that we have young men who want to enter the community and their Catholic parents are discouraging them. They don’t want them to be brothers. They want them to be either married or become priests.

What we have is Catholics who want to repair the liturgy, fix the Church, get past child abuse, and much more, but they stand in the way of young men who want to become consecrated religioius. There is a bigger problem here than liturgical abuse.

Our experience is not unique. The Francisan Brothers of the Primitive Observance get the same reports from their candidates. Parents who object to their sons becoming brothers in that community because they don’t have computers, TV, cell phones and they sleep on the floor, they beg for food on the streets, they don’t run parishes, but instead they spend endless hours with the sick, the addict, the poor and homeless.

There was a time when parents would have been very proud of their sons. Today, we see a resistance to the consecrated life. This begs the questsion. Who will convert the world?

How many parish priests can:

• walk the streets talking to people?
• run soup kitchens?
• run homeless shelters?
• preach healing retreats to those who have had abortions?
• run chastity days for youth?
• sit all night with a person who is drying, praying him into heaven?
• write and teach on the Gospel of Life?
• run pregnancy centers?
• teach theology to laity, seminarians and laity?
• teach the Gospel of Life to children, youth and adults?
• run ministries via internet, TV, radio?

Parish priests do not have the time or the training to do these things. You need the religious brother. The Holy Father has made this very clear in recent days. I believe that Francis and Dominic would agree that the reforms and healing that we need won’t happen unless there are two changes in modern Catholics:

• greater reverence in liturgy and prayer
• recovery of traditional religious life

They go together because they are both sources of grace for the Church. We can’t just ask for the one without the other. Francis and Domnic were well aware of this. That’s why they promoted both.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I think if St Francis and St Dominic were alive today, they would not be to happy and charitable with the Catholic Church in Europe right now. He would probably ask his Saracen friends to give him a hand with the godless atheism flooding Europe.

GK Chesterton wrote a beautiful biography of St. Francis of Assisi. He begins by comparing Franciscan and Dominican spirituality. He says, “When the world forgot reason, God gave us St. Dominica and when the world forgot Romance, God gave us St. Francis. Either way, the Church always gives us what the world needs.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[bkovacs]

GK Chesterton wrote a beautiful biography of St. Francis of Assisi. He begins by comparing Franciscan and Dominican spirituality. He says, “When the world forgot reason, God gave us St. Dominica and when the world forgot Romance, God gave us St. Francis. Either way, the Church always gives us what the world needs.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

And I would add. When the Catholic Church forgot it’s traditions, God gave us Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[Bluegoat]

GK Chesterton wrote a beautiful biography of St. Francis of Assisi. He begins by comparing Franciscan and Dominican spirituality. He says, “When the world forgot reason, God gave us St. Dominica and when the world forgot Romance, God gave us St. Francis. Either way, the Church always gives us what the world needs.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I love Chesterton’s biography of St Francis. I’m about half way into his biography of Thomas, which is also very enjoyable, but I think slightly more difficult reading. Though it may be that I read the Francis biography in university and my brain was getting much more of that kind of exercise!

In any case - much of my family on my dad’s side were very Catholic in the years before Vatican II. It was not all pretty, and in fact some terrible things went on, which it seems some like to forget. I think of residential schools as one example that is in the past of both the RC and Anglican Churches in Canada.) It is not bad to have moved on from these things, and I am not sure that idealizing that time is the best way to do so. The same arguments made for going back to that earlier kind of piety or understanding of Catholicism could easily lead to those same terrible situations.

So - I think it is easy to see a new infusion into the religious life is something necessary and to be desired. But not because a girl had no other real options than marriage (or couldn’t marry) or because a boy was told by his parents that he was to be a priest. Both of these things happened somewhat regularly in my part of the world. But something has to happen, and it has to be connected to the past, but not of the past. I’m sure it will, in its own due time - really it has not been that long compared to other difficult times, or slow times, in the Church.

 

[numealinesimpet]

The availability of the Extraordinary Form is a good thing. Hopefully, more priests and deacons will learn the form so that they can offer it to those who appreciate it. It is important to maintain a spiritual balance, to remember that the Roman Church has two forms and several rites too. Part of that balance is to believe and think as the Church believes and thinks. Both forms and all the rites are equally holy and equally efficacious.

With respect, Bro. JR, I don’t think that’s rigorously true… Aquinas and many other saints have discussed the prickly question of the merit (= holiness & efficacy?) of the Mass when offered by priests reverently vs irreverently; by a holy priest vs by one in a state of mortal sin. (Most of these discussions, being pre-1969, naturally presuppose the Traditional Latin Mass –TLM).

In its substance, every valid Mass is of infinite merit, because it is the very same Sacrifice as that offered once-and-for-all on Calvary. But the “accidental” merit – like the clothes on the person – may vary in their effect.

Aquinas points out that, if we were angels, we would be able ot “see” intuitively things which, in our human nature, must come to us through our five senses, and by laborious thinking-it-out. We are affected by our surroundings both consciously and unconsciously. That is why it is dangerous to attend any irreverent religious event; a message is given to othe back of our minds that this is acceptable (otherwise we would not be experiencing it). I would therefore argue that it is indeed in the mind of the Church to seek for what gives the most glory to God. It seems to have escaped the eager innovators of the 1960s, but this was a big reason for having made the traditional Liturgy as standardised as possible, and that as reverent and worthy as possible.

implying that the OF will not give them the holiness and graces that they need. This is very disconcerting

Well, that’s putting it a bit strongly. Is it not so that, with the wildly different manifestations of the Mass to be found today, one can certainly say that some are more helpful to the individual? And some ‘celebrations’ would seem, to any rational being, more fitting for the action of the Divine Mystery, the Centre of our Religion, than others? We were protected in the past from even thinking about such dilemmas: now, they are forced upon us.

… because it’s a statement about the holy mass. How can we justify making or implying such a thing about the mass?

Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci (plus eleven other cardinals, who withdrew their signatures when the document was leaked before presentation to the Holy Father) were more than willing to make such observations.

They presented their views in a letter to Pope Paul VI in what has become known as “The Ottaviani Intervention”.
You can find it at
fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html
& elsewhere.

… The Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery. 


2. The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicions already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith. 

Amongst the best of the clergy the practical result is an agonising crisis of conscience of which innumerable instances come tour notice daily. 

A. Card. Ottaviani 

A. Card. Bacci

 

[numealinesimpet]

Ottaviani Intervention
fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html

Brief Summary

**I History of the Change

**The new form of Mass was substantially rejected by the Episcopal Synod, was never submitted to the collegial judgement of the Episcopal Conferences and was never asked for by the people. It has every possibility of satisfying the most modernist of Protestants.

** 

II Definition of the Mass

**By a series of equivocations the emphasis is obsessively placed upon the ‘supper’ and the ‘memorial’ instead of on the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary.

** 

III Presentation of the Ends

**The three ends of the Mass are altered:- no distinction is allowed to remain between Divine and human sacrifice; bread and wine are only “spiritually” (not substantially) changed.

** 

IV The Essence

**The Real Presence of Christ is never alluded to and belief in it is implicitly repudiated.
N.B. Various Anglican groups, who specifically reject Transubstantiation, use the OF (Ordinary Form = Novus Ordo Missae), using Eucharistic Prayer 2, without any change to the text, stating that it does nothing to contradict their own set of beliefs. We do not need “Traditional Catholics” to tell us this: the Protestants have done so themselves.

**** 

V The Elements of the Sacrifice

---

The position of both priest and people is falsified and the Celebrant appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister,I think they are referring to the fact that the priest has turned his back on the tabernacle for most of the Mass, as well as the blurring of the distinction between priest and congregation

… while the true nature of the Church is intolerably misrepresented.

**** VI The Destruction of Unity

---

The abandonment of Latin sweeps away for good and all unity of worship. This may have its effect on unity of belief and the New Order has no intention of standing for the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent to which the Catholic conscience is bound.

**** VII: The Alienation of the Orthodox

****While pleasing various dissenting groups, the New Order will alienate the East.

**

VIII The Abandonment of Defences

**The New Order teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the purity of the Catholic religion and dismantles all defences of the deposit of Faith.

These thoughts are expressed very strongly, but they came from cardinals in very senior places in the hierarchy. I do but quote.
Therefore, if someone is troubled about the Parish Masses, I would not advise them to run hastily to the SSPX, because it is no light matter that their situation in Church Law is still not fully resolved; but I would earnestly advise them to study the history of the SSPX, from their own sources, and also the whole question of the limits of obedience. The SSPX insist, and I have been convinced by their argument, that they were never guilty of disobedience. See later posting on what S. Thomas Aquinas has to say about that. Or talk to an SSPX priest about it.
I believe that anyone who has informed their conscience, and believes that the SSPX have a legitimate case, need have no “fear of censure or qualm of conscience” in attending their Masses.

This has been under discussion in the current CAF Thread "SSPX Mass OK?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6129514#post6129514
See post #153 by ProVobis. Also See page 8, posts #121, 122 etc.

 

[JReducation]

It was not all pretty, and in fact some terrible things went on, which it seems some like to forget. I think of residential schools as one example that is in the past of both the RC and Anglican Churches in Canada.) It is not bad to have moved on from these things, and I am not sure that idealizing that time is the best way to do so. The same arguments made for going back to that earlier kind of piety or understanding of Catholicism could easily lead to those same terrible situations.

But something has to happen, and it has to be connected to the past, but not of the past. I’m sure it will, in its own due time - really it has not been that long compared to other difficult times, or slow times, in the Church.

To idealize any time in history is to be ignorant of history. It seems that we have forgotten that child abuse among clerics and religious goes back to the 1940s; children coming home after suffering physical punishment at the hands of religious; priests who celebrated the 15 minute mass in the morning is just as old; religious communities that took over parishes to help out the bishops at the expense of their vocation was a tragedy that should never be repeated.

One major reason that religious orders of men lost so many men was the rude awakening to the fact that they did not belong in parishes. Most religious communities of men were not founded for parish work, nor were they ever trained for it. This is the case today. We do not train men for parish ministry. It is not in the vision of religious founders, with some exceptions.

When religious orders of men tried to recover and bring their man back into the mainstream of religious life, those men who were in parishes for many years felt betrayed and confused. When they returned to their religious houses they were subject to rules, disciplines, customs and schedules that they had abandoned years before, because there was no time for religious life and parish ministry. It was one or the other.

I will never forget one our ordained brothers who came back to live in a friary in the early 1980s being very frustrated at the idea that he had to ask for permission to walk outside,could not have a car, had to rise and go to bed at the same time as the rest of the community, do laundry, cook and scrub floors. He was indignant about the fact that he was ordained a priest and a lay brother was his superior. It was an attitude of “How dare a lay brother order me around.” He left the priesthood and religious life. Lay brothers have been running friaries and monasteries for over 1,000 years. Suddenly the Pre-Vatican II generation of religious men and laity forgot this. This led to unnecessary pain for priests who were both, religious and priests.

These were not good old days. The laity was not aware of what difficulties were taking place behind the cloister door. There were many good things that can be recovered and kept.

Then there was the problem of consolidating religious house to encourage community living. This meant that parishes and other ministries had to be returned to the bishop. These religious men were broken hearted at the idea of having to leave the parishes that they helped build. But they also were aware that they were no longer religiuos men. They were simply priests. This is not why one enters a religious community. You enter to be a religious, not to be a priest. You can join to ba religious. From the 1800s religious men were simply secular priests in habits. The laity was thrilled to have them in their parishes. The religious communities were miserable, because they felt no connection with their founders and original charism. These things were also happening in the pre-Vatican II Church. We lost many good religious men because of it.

Today, religious communities of men and women are pulling back from parish work. Other communities are being founded to do everything, but parish work. That is one important reason why you see less priests in parishes. They are living their lives as brothers, which is the reason that they entered religious life. They are monks and friars, missionaries and teachers. This is what they were fonded to be. In reality, there is a recovery of the religious life among men and it’s going strong.

If you watch EWTN this week, Fr. Wade Menesis has been celebrating the daily mass, because the friars of that region are on retreat for a week. That was never possible “in the good old days.” Bishops and laity did not like it when religious closed up their houses and went to their motherhouses for a week of community life or went on a week retreat as brothers. Therefore, someone always had to stay behind. Is this what we want our priests to do? Do we want those who are both priests AND religious to pass up community activities because they can’t close a parish for a week or a month? If that’s the case, then they can’t be in a parish. The life of the community must always take priority over any ministry. The first ministry of any man in a religious order is his religious community. This attitude was missing prior to Vatican II. Vatican II reminded us of that. It demanded that we go back to being monks, friars, missioanries, teachers, workers among the poor and so forth. Now that we’re trying to do this, some people complain that we need to go back to the good old days. Many of the practices and expectations of the good old days were harmful to vocations. Let’s not forget that.

We must go for balance. Let secular priests run parishes. Let religious men be religious. Let a priest in a religious order serve the needs of his order and the mission of his order. You can’t pull people in two directions and not expect them to hurt in some way. Above all, let us not lose hope. The Church is not going anywhere. It will recover and come out stronger. She always does.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

.Well, that’s putting it a bit strongly. Is it not so that, with the wildly different manifestations of the Mass to be found today, one can certainly say that some are more helpful to the individual?.

Yes, which is why I would like to see those who desire a certain liturgy find it. But I think it is important to remember that one of the points the Holy Father has insisted on from the begining in any talks is that the SSPX accept the valiidy of the Mass. That means, anyone can objectively find Grace it the Mass today. If one can not, the fault is not with the Mass. I do not think the rather gentle way this was said was strong at all.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Yes, which is why I would like to see those who desire a certain liturgy find it. But I think it is important to remember that one of the points the Holy Father has insisted on from the begining in any talks is that the SSPX accept the valiidy of the Mass. That means, anyone can objectively find Grace in the Mass today. If one can not, the fault is not with the Mass. I do not think the rather gentle way this was said was strong at all.

Hello,** pnewton.** I was not referring to the tone at all. Bro. JR has the sweetest disposition imaginable, and he has poured oil on many a troubled water. I was referring to the content:

implying that the OF will not give them the holiness and graces that they need. This is very disconcerting.

Well, that’s putting it a bit strongly.

That’s because I didn’t think the original poster (or many others I know who go to the SSPX) make such a strong statement (whatever tone they use) … what they say is that they find the TLM more reverent, that they believe they get more graces, that the sermons are better, etc etc … I realise there are exceptions. What I meant to say is, that it would be a mistake to jump to the conclusion that those who leave the NO for the TLM assert that " the OF will not give them the holiness and graces that they need."

Holy Father has insisted on from the begining in any talks is that the SSPX accept the valiidy of the Mass.

Well, on CAF, it has been reiterated again and again that validity was never the issue with the SSPX. In fact, Mgr Lefebvre expelled those of his seminarians who asserted as a fact that the NO was per se invalid. In fact, Mgr Lefebvre advised that if a person has a huge problem with attending the TLM at the SSPX (which at the time was the only option 99.9% of the time) it would be better for them personally to go to the NO. On the other hand, this was the era of the Clown Masses (not to mention the Baseball Confirmation referred to previously in CAF) and there could not but be grave doubt that some alleged Masses could not possibly be valid.

To repeat, for readers new to this topic, Mgr Lefebvre always insisted that there was no excuse for claiming that the Novus Ordo Missae, celebrated in Latin according to the rubrics, was invalid. The problem lay more in what it missed out than in what was there – as summarised in the Ottaviani Intervention (see previous post). And in the fact that many vernacular ‘translations’ systematically mistranslated the Latin; that the rubrics were being ignored with impunity, yet presented to the faithful as ‘The Voice of the Church’ etc etc. It was also the era in which ostensive Masses were being ‘celebrated’ with altar hosts made with honey, butter and sometimes other ingredients. Now Canon Law states quite unambiguously that such Masses are invalid. That means that the priest is holding up, at the consecration, not the Body of Christ but a lump of cookie – and the congregation are offering it Divine Worship. This was done in a major American diocese for ten whole years, with full encouragement of the Archbishop, despite every possible legal protest being made. Admonitions that eventually arrived from Rome were simply brushed aside. Do be aware that, not only was every single one of those “Eucharistic Celebrations” a material mortal sin; the priests are bound, under pain of mortal sin, to refund every one of the Mass stipends provided for these 'Masses," or else to say them again – and validly.

That [the validiy of the Mass] means, anyone can objectively find Grace in the Mass today. If one can not, the fault is not with the Mass.

That’s not actually true. “Black Masses” (and if you don’t believe they are carried out, you must live in a fortunate enclave. They do, dear people) *** are valid*** – otherwise ‘they’ would not bother to go through with them. Validity is not the crux of the matter.

If one can not, the fault is not with the Mass.

Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, not to mention S. Thomas Aquinas, disagree. It is not, I submit, possible to shrug it off as dismissively as that.

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, which is why I would like to see those who desire a certain liturgy find it. But I think it is important to remember that one of the points the Holy Father has insisted on from the begining in any talks is that the SSPX accept the valiidy of the Mass. That means, anyone can objectively find Grace it the Mass today. If one can not, the fault is not with the Mass. I do not think the rather gentle way this was said was strong at all.

Isn’t it possible that some of those in Rome (also) doubt the validity of the Mass? I mean, why, after 40 years and constantly defending the 1967 translations, this strong attempt to change the translations to “conform to the original Latin”? Coincidence that the SSPX-Vatican talks are going on at the same time these changes are being implemented?

 

[surritter]

Isn’t it possible that some of those in Rome (also) doubt the validity of the Mass? I mean, why, after 40 years and constantly defending the 1967 translations, this strong attempt to change the translations to “conform to the original Latin”? Coincidence that the SSPX-Vatican talks are going on at the same time these changes are being implemented?

Having less-than-perfect translations does not make the Mass invalid.