Question for SSPX chapel-goers.

[maurin]

Read the FAQ. In fact, I will quote from their FAQ, entitled: Should a Catholic Have Anything to Do With A Novus Ordo Missae?

There. That indicates pretty clearly that the Society objects to every Mass celebrated in the OF, and goes so far as to say that it does not fulfill the Sunday obligation for “those aware of its harm” (presumably adherents of the Society). Furthermore, the last sentence indicates that they don’t even want adherents to receive when and if they do attend an OF Mass.

for all of the shortcomings inherent in the “Eucharistic Prayers” some of which I have already ennumerated above, we are aware of them, and we find them harmful. We find them ghastly. We find them sad. But from this same statement which I bolded, which you quoted from the FAQ, it should also be clear that for those who are unaware of those shortcomings, it constitutes a Mass which fulfills their Obligation.

And yet I continue to feud?

unjustly, uninformedly and rashly so.

What, should I pretend that the SSPX is already regularized?

noone pretends that the SSPX is already regularized. Anyone with eyes, who can read, knows they are not yet. The better question would be, why should you pretend to speak authoritatively about things, and in ways in which the Church Herself, in the person of His Holiness, does not? I offer your own words in defense of this statement:

They aren’t, and they won’t be if they maintain their current principles, which don’t even permit adherents to attend non-SSPX Latin Masses, even those said by the FSSP. Read their FAQs.

As lay people we are not members of the Society. We assist at their Masses. We are free to do what we want, and to assist at any Mass that we want. “Permit”, which I bolded and underlined in your statement should be “recommend.” And you don’t add fuel to the fire in order to perpetuate a feud?

 

[pnewton]

It’s simple alright, but logic? if you say so. nice spin. The SSPX says nothing of the sort in regards to the NO when celebrated properly according to the rubrics, with no improvisation: in other words, a valid Mass.

Lujak,
There is a point here that might bear mention. While I do not think it is common, a Mass can be celebrated in a way to invalidate the Eucharist. For example, if the priest tampers with the simple element of the bread, one does not have a valid Mass. One does not have the Blessed Sacrament. If that is all the SSPX means, I think they are right.

In any case, this is one of the few points the Holy Father will insist on being included in any reconcilliation, the validity of the current Mass.

 

[Lujack]

for all of the shortcomings inherent in the “Eucharistic Prayers” some of which I have already ennumerated above, we are aware of them, and we find them harmful. We find them ghastly. We find them sad. But from this same statement which I bolded, which you quoted from the FAQ, it should also be clear that for those who are unaware of those shortcomings, it constitutes a Mass which fulfills their Obligation.

You don’t find that an obstacle, that the SSPX holds that a valid Novus Ordo Mass, attended in full, can fail to fulfill the Sunday obligation? That the SSPX holds that the Novus Ordo Mass is not really Catholic at all?

unjustly, uninformedly and rashly so.

Uninformedly? How am I uninformed? I quoted their FAQS, so nothing I said is false.

noone pretends that the SSPX is already regularized. Anyone with eyes, who can read, knows they are not yet. The better question would be, why should you pretend to speak authoritatively about things, and in ways in which the Church Herself, in the person of His Holiness, does not

I never claimed to have authority Rather, I offered my opinion on a message board of obstacles that I saw remaining.

As lay people we are not members of the Society. We assist at their Masses. We are free to do what we want, and to assist at any Mass that we want. “Permit”, which I bolded and underlined in your statement should be “recommend.”

Oh, come on. The FAQ basically says that to attend a Mass by the FSSP is to abandon the principles of the Society. While lay people are not a member of the society, they aren’t exactly typical lay people either. I’m struggling to come up with a term to use here, because adherents is apparently objectionable. What would you prefer that they be referred to as? I’ll leave it up to you, because I don’t want to choose something that’s offensive inadvertantly.

And you don’t add fuel to the fire in order to perpetuate a feud?

I’m not capable of adding fuel to the fire. The regularization process is not something any of us can affect, not unless we’re acting in enormous numbers. I’m not adding fuel to the fire either, but I’m adding my opinion to a discussion on a message board. It isn’t like I dug these things up; they are in broad daylight on their website.

 

[LeroyCRHP]

Not at all and it was nice to understand the background of your name interesting twist the history of your name came from Latin.

As far as my dark skin goes, it doesn’t offend you, does it?

 

[Lujack]

Lujak,
There is a point here that might bear mention. While I do not think it is common, a Mass can be celebrated in a way to invalidate the Eucharist. For example, if the priest tampers with the simple element of the bread, one does not have a valid Mass. One does not have the Blessed Sacrament. If that is all the SSPX means, I think they are right.

In any case, this is one of the few points the Holy Father will insist on being included in any reconcilliation, the validity of the current Mass.

Oh, I agree with that. The SSPX FAQ, though, specifically cited intent as being problematic in the Novus Ordo. I’m not quite sure what they are trying to say there, other than casting aspersions on non-SSPX priests. I’d like to think it means something else, but I’m not sure quite how else to read it.

 

[maurin]

You don’t find that an obstacle, that the SSPX holds that a valid Novus Ordo Mass, attended in full,* can* fail to fulfill the Sunday obligation? That the SSPX holds that the Novus Ordo Mass is not really Catholic at all?
Uninformedly? How am I uninformed? I quoted their FAQS, so nothing I said is false.

in these instances you remind me of the protestant who accuses us of worshipping Mary because we kneel in front of her image and pray. The protestant points to the fact that I am kneeling in front of her image and praying, so I must be worshipping her.

If I attended a NO Mass at any of the Parishes in my area–Parishes where Deacons routinely ad lib what the Church Herself gave them to say in the Missal, Lay people preach (from time to time), and Priests (notice the plural, this has happened MANY times) openly question Doctrines and Dogmas concerning Morals as well as the Faith in their ‘Homilies’–knowing what I know, I wouldn’t have fulfilled my Sunday Obligation. I think you are missing this as the point in the FAQ.

If you doubt or deny that the Parishes and the majority of Priests are that bad in this area, and other areas, then you should get out more–or maybe you shouldn’t. Noone deserves to be subjected to what the Faithful are subjected to here.

I never claimed to have authority Rather, I offered my opinion on a message board of obstacles that I saw remaining.

Boloney. You make declaritive statements. You don’t present as your opinion.

Oh, come on. The FAQ basically says that to attend a Mass by the FSSP is to abandon the principles of the Society.

I am of the opinion that they caved. In my opionion, they are similar to the apostates (no, the FSSP Priests are not apostates, I’m drawing an analogy) during the persecutions. the FSSP Priests do not have the luxury to state their convictions. They will thank the Society once Regularization is achieved…when it is achieved.

While lay people are not a member of the society, they aren’t exactly typical lay people either. I’m struggling to come up with a term to use here, because adherents is apparently objectionable. What would you prefer that they be referred to as? I’ll leave it up to you, because I don’t want to choose something that’s offensive inadvertantly.

dude, if you think that Extempore was commenting on your use of the word ‘adherent’ then you totally missed his point. I’m not surprised.

I’m not capable of adding fuel to the fire. The regularization process is not something any of us can affect, not unless we’re acting in enormous numbers. I’m not adding fuel to the fire either, but I’m adding my opinion to a discussion on a message board. It isn’t like I dug these things up; they are in broad daylight on their website.

and your spin is unjust, uninformed and rash. that is how you add fuel to the fire. Like with Extempore’s post: all you got out of that was you thought he was upset with the use of the word “adherent?” You hear what you want to hear, not necessarily what was said, and then you run with it.

good luck with that, Lujack.

 

[Extempore]

The status is not a regular one, they have to somehow be distinguished from laypeople.

I think this is where the misunderstanding lies. The “status” of Catholics who attend SSPX Masses is not at issue. The Priests and Bishops of the SSPX are not regularized. The laypeople are Catholics, and I believe they would prefer to be called as such.

The terms “Lefebrite” and “SSPX’er” are distinctions that need not even be made in the first place.

What, then, shall I call them?

Catholic laypeople.

 

[Lujack]

I think this is where the misunderstanding lies. The “status” of Catholics who attend SSPX Masses is not at issue. The Priests and Bishops of the SSPX are not regularized. The laypeople are Catholics, and I believe they would prefer to be called as such.

The terms “Lefebrite” and “SSPX’er” are distinctions that need not even be made in the first place.

Catholic laypeople.

That would be fair, but the SSPX FAQs clearly have different guidelines that they would like the laypeople who attend their Masses to follow. If they are following different guidelines than the average layperson, doesn’t it stand that they are than distinct from the average layperson?

 

[Extempore]

That would be fair, but the SSPX FAQs clearly have different guidelines that they would like the laypeople who attend their Masses to follow. If they are following different guidelines than the average layperson, doesn’t it stand that they are than distinct from the average layperson?

The guidelines that they propose are no different from what the Catholic church has always advised laypeople - to avoid Masses that are of suspect validity. Since the abuses run rampant in many dioceses (I truly hope yours is the exception!) it is not unreasonable to warn Catholics of this danger.

It would be silly to assert that by asking Catholic laypeople to avoid Masses in which the chance of abuse is exponentially increased that the SSPX magically transform the laity’s “status.”

But this is all tangential anyhow. As maurin noted, my comments on your post weren’t about terminology they were addressing your approach to the FAQ section as being some sort of cultist manifesto which is forced upon all who attend the chapels.

(*EDIT: After reading my response, I edited this post to hopefully more directly address what you were asking. *)

 

[Lujack]

in these instances you remind me of the protestant who accuses us of worshipping Mary because we kneel in front of her image and pray. The protestant points to the fact that I am kneeling in front of her image and praying, so I must be worshipping her.

If I attended a NO Mass at any of the Parishes in my area–Parishes where Deacons routinely ad lib what the Church Herself gave them to say in the Missal, Lay people preach (from time to time), and Priests (notice the plural, this has happened MANY times) openly question Doctrines and Dogmas concerning Morals as well as the Faith in their ‘Homilies’–knowing what I know, I wouldn’t have fulfilled my Sunday Obligation. I think you are missing this as the point in the FAQ.

If that’s the point they are trying to make, they’ve missed the boat. Look, I’ve been to parishes across Jersey City, South Jersey, and Southern Pennsylvania, and I’ve never experienced this (my home church has even had three different pastors in this time there). I think the SSPX’s view of the Church as a whole is far too pessimistic; the only time I’ve ever been to Mass that I thought was too informal was an overflow Easter Mass held in a school gym. That’s once in nearly nineteen years, and it was unique circumstances.

Masses with abuse get all the attention, but its been my experience that the vast majority of them are just fine.

If you doubt or deny that the Parishes and the majority of Priests are that bad in this area, and other areas, then you should get out more–or maybe you shouldn’t. Noone deserves to be subjected to what the Faithful are subjected to here.

I’m sorry your area is the way it is, but I’ve been to Mass in three different dioceses where I am, and my experience has not been that way.

Boloney. You make declaritive statements. You don’t present as your opinion.

Neither do you.

I am of the opinion that they caved. In my opionion, they are similar to the apostates (no, the FSSP Priests are not apostates, I’m drawing an analogy) during the persecutions. the FSSP Priests do not have the luxury to state their convictions. They will thank the Society once Regularization is achieved…when it is achieved.

Is that enough for the SSPX to say that their Masses shouldn’t be attended?

dude, if you think that Extempore was commenting on your use of the word ‘adherent’ then you totally missed his point. I’m not surprised.

I got his point. He thought my vocabulary was intended to make the SSPX sound like a cult, which wasn’t my intention. Am I allowed to use shorthand every now and then?

and your spin is unjust, uninformed and rash. that is how you add fuel to the fire. Like with Extempore’s post: all you got out of that was you thought he was upset with the use of the word “adherent?” You hear what you want to hear, not necessarily what was said, and then you run with it.

good luck with that, Lujack.

This is ridiculous. The SSPX says that every single Novus Ordo Mass said anywhere in the world, and any Latin Mass that isn’t said by an SSPX priest, even by the priests of the FSSP is of suspect validity and should not be attended, and you accuse me of unjust, uninformed, and rash generalizations? The Society casts aspersions on every priest in the world, and I’m the one making unjust accusations?

 

[alih]

irishdude…many have had the same questions you posed originally. the one thing, many believe to be observed is; "is the priest duly ordained?’’ if a bishop, “is he duly consecrated?”
memories of many are short, pope benedict xvi may have inadvertanty made the case in not recognizing any so called christian church as a church if it did not possess apostolic succession. therefore, if the forementioned are true. then they must be valid. have a good year. (alih)

 

[mullenpm]

Excuse me, Irish Dude, but since you are a new Catholic and obviously have no information or knowledge about irreverence and heresy in all Novus Ordo parishes how dare you include all these parishes with something you observed in one parish, if you fully understood what was happening there to begin with.

What “heresy” have you seen in parishes where the Pauline Mass is celebrated?

 

[alih]

mullenp…if you were referring to me, please take a few moments out of your busy schedule, read and understand what was posted and then please apologize. have a good year. (alih)

 

[maurin]

If that’s the point they are trying to make, they’ve missed the boat. Look, I’ve been to parishes across Jersey City, South Jersey, and Southern Pennsylvania, and I’ve never experienced this (my home church has even had three different pastors in this time there). I think the SSPX’s view of the Church as a whole is far too pessimistic; the only time I’ve ever been to Mass that I thought was too informal was an overflow Easter Mass held in a school gym. That’s once in nearly nineteen years, and it was unique circumstances.

Masses with abuse get all the attention, but its been my experience that the vast majority of them are just fine.

if all you’ve ever had was skim milk…

I’m sorry your area is the way it is, but I’ve been to Mass in three different dioceses where I am, and my experience has not been that way.

I don’t discount your experience, and I’m glad you haven’t been scandalized. however you seem to discount the experiences of many. I’ve lived in the NE for 3 decades, the Southwest for more than 1 decade and the SE for 3 years…I have seen some very nicely done NO Masses. But I’ve been horrified just as many times.

Neither do you.

On the contrary, I don’t make unsupported declarative statements. I present my opinion as my opinion when I am giving my opinion. I present my observations as observations. One only has to scroll up through the pages to see that you make declaration after declaration, unsupported, and well over and above your knowledge.

Is that enough for the SSPX to say that their Masses shouldn’t be attended?

quite frankly, yes. If one believes in that which the Society stands for, that is.

I got his point. He thought my vocabulary was intended to make the SSPX sound like a cult, which wasn’t my intention. Am I allowed to use shorthand every now and then?

as an aside, yes, but you missed the point that the SSPX is not a set of commands or orders to the Faithful, but, as Extempore wrote, a set of guidelines to follow for those who have made a commitment to the Traditional Beliefs and Teachings of the Church.

This is ridiculous.

funny…I’ve thought as much of much of what you said, but respected, not your opinions, but you enough not to state it. Thanks, though.

The SSPX says that every single Novus Ordo Mass said anywhere in the world, and any Latin Mass that isn’t said by an SSPX priest, even by the priests of the FSSP is of suspect validity and should not be attended, and you accuse me of unjust, uninformed, and rash generalizations? The Society casts aspersions on every priest in the world, and I’m the one making unjust accusations?

Absolutely, you are the one making unjust accusations. Like I said in the beginning, if you all you have ever had was skim milk, you have no idea how rich whole milk is.

 

[Lujack]

if all you’ve ever had was skim milk…

I’ve been to a Tridentine Mass. I honestly prefer the Ordinary Form, because its the Mass I know. I don’t begrudge anyone the Tridentine Mass, and I’d love to see the sign on my parish read 8:45-Mass 10:00-Extraordinary Form 11:15-Mass 12:30-Spanish Mass. I’d be in Church at 11:15, though.

I don’t discount your experience, and I’m glad you haven’t been scandalized. however you seem to discount the experiences of many. I’ve lived in the NE for 3 decades, the Southwest for more than 1 decade and the SE for 3 years…I have seen some very nicely done NO Masses. But I’ve been horrified just as many times.

I don’t discount the experience of many. I understand that there are bad Masses out there. Is that enough, though, for the SSPX to say that every single Novus Ordo Mass in the world is suspect?

On the contrary, I don’t make unsupported declarative statements. I present my opinion as my opinion when I am giving my opinion. I present my observations as observations. One only has to scroll up through the pages to see that you make declaration after declaration, unsupported, and well over and above your knowledge.

Honestly, I don’t see it that way, but we aren’t going to make any progress on this point, so perhaps we can agree to drop it?

quite frankly, yes. If one believes in that which the Society stands for, that is.

Isn’t that an obstacle to regularization? You have said, I believe, that the SSPX will be fully regularized within a few months. What is going to change in those few months? The OF will not be suppressed in that short period of time. Doesn’t it seem a problem that one society, in good standing, will be telling those who attend its Masses not to attend the Masses of other orders, societies, and secular priests, who are also in good standing?

as an aside, yes, but you missed the point that the SSPX is not a set of commands or orders to the Faithful, but, as Extempore wrote, a set of guidelines to follow for those who have made a commitment to the Traditional Beliefs and Teachings of the Church.

And those guidelines basically state that tradition rests only with SSPX and their Masses, to the point that Catholics shouldn’t even attend other Masses.

funny…I’ve thought as much of much of what you said, but respected, not your opinions, but you enough not to state it. Thanks, though. Absolutely, you are the one making unjust accusations. Like I said in the beginning, if you all you have ever had was skim milk, you have no idea how rich whole milk is.

I’ve been to a Tridentine Mass, but you’ve also ignored the point that I’m trying to make-if I’m making hasty generalizations, than what is the SSPX doing by questioning the intent of every non-SSPX priest, and the validity of every non-SSPX Mass?

 

[JReducation]

We have to be very careful when we use such words as heresy. Heresy has a very specific meaning in canon law and in theology. The fact that something does not follow the guidelines established by the GIRM does not make it heresy. It is a violation of the guidelines that needs to be corrected ASAP.

I notice that there is a tendency to throw that word around too easily, as if one were ordering a Happy Meal.

One side uses it to speak about the SSPX and the other side uses it to speak about the Ordinary Form and 99% of the time, both sides are using it very incorrectly and very uncharitably.

Slander is a very serious sin, regardless of whether one prefers the Extraordinary Form (EF) or the Ordinary Form (OF).

The SSPX and the Ordinary Form Catholics are not heretics. Individuals have made heretical statements, but let us not paint an entire group of people with such a broad brush. That is very uncharitable and untrue.

We’re are always going to find something that we disagree with or something that we know is not quite kosher in one situation or another. That does not define an entire population nor does it promote unity.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[UnusMilitum]

So the shepherds sacrificed their sheep to Him, did they? Peter and John and the rest poured those netsful of fish straight into His lap as tribute? And of course Jesus told that rich young man to come back and give the money to Him, no? Actually - what He said was to give to the poor

Ok, you’re right. And while we’re at it, let’s tear down the great cathedrals and replace them with eye-sores, or sell them to muslims. Let’s sell all the priceless art, strip all the gold, remove all the altar cloths and so on. And all this time I thought the Catholic Church was against iconoclasts and puritanical sour-pusses. Perhaps the Magi could have appeared with gifts more…relevant and handy to the holy family. Perhaps a new bandsaw for St. Joseph?

In fact they didn’t give Him ANYTHING significant materially - although they certainly could have. Just the gift of themselves. Even Mary didn’t give Him the gift of her service the first time He visited - she left that to Martha

The old widow didn’t give him ANYTHING significant either. Her last two small coins to the temple? What is that? Oh yeah, it, along with her great faith, was the best gift that she was able to give. She didn’t withold her money. Sounds to me like faith working in love…

And Jesus commended her for focusing on Him rather than fussing about was or wasn’t going on around her, if I recall rightly. That’s why I’m perfectly happy going to any valid liturgy - He’s there. Jesus, the same yesterday, today and forever, the same at NO, TLM or DL.

I hear that a lot from NO folk. “But it’s still valid” they scream. Now if only they’d work on expelling all the abuse and sacrilege they tolerate in the middle of their valid liturgy. Then it just might be more pleasing to God, knowing that He’s not being abused amid the splendor of the Mass. Don’t pretend you don’t know what I’m talking about. The Mass is a place to get away from the errors of the world instead of bringing them with us. Yes, the liturgy is valid, but this is the minimum requirement, right? It should also be reverent and as free from error as possible…That’s what rubrics are for! Perhaps many priests should find theirs!

“It’s still valid!!!”

Pshaw.

 

[mullenpm]

alih, I was not referring to you; I was referring to the OP who stated “irreverence and HERESY” at the NO Masses.

I want to know what heresy is taking place at the NO Masses.

 

[pnewton]

Oh, I agree with that. The SSPX FAQ, though, specifically cited intent as being problematic in the Novus Ordo. I’m not quite sure what they are trying to say there, other than casting aspersions on non-SSPX priests. I’d like to think it means something else, but I’m not sure quite how else to read it.

I understand and it might well be a back handed slam. The truth may be more mundane, namely, that collections go where the people go.

 

[ProVobis]

So the shepherds sacrificed their sheep to Him, did they? Peter and John and the rest poured those netsful of fish straight into His lap as tribute? And of course Jesus told that rich young man to come back and give the money to Him, no? Actually - what He said was to give to the poor

We need to remind the bishops of this. You should see some of these expensive and ugly churches they’re building around here these days.