Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) In communion with the Chair of Peter, YES or NO?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic29
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
First off, I will state that I attend NOM and TLM Indult, but I also visit SSPX chapels as well. These people are true catholics in every sense of the word, even if they disobey the Pope in one matter.

Secondly I really didn’t want to reply to this, but I have to reply because of 2 specific posts.
SEAN O.L.

How can you be taken seriously, mate, when you do not appear to understand what the text of the Session 12, Canon 9 of the Council of Trent actualy meant?

At the time, the Protestants WERE saying that the Mass should be said in the vernacular only! And that was what Trent condemned: “saying that the Mass should be said in the vernacular ONLY.”

What was the position in 1969 (and as of today)?

It is patently evident (at least to those who do not have a problem with that particular Canon) that the new liturgy of Paul VI WAS PROMULGATED in Latin - and vernacular translations were, subsequently permitted upon submissions from the Bishops’ Conferences. However, the official Mass of the Roman Rite (is the Latin Liturgy promulgated in 1969) AND - to my knowledge - NO-ONE has said or IS saying that “the Mass should be said in the vernacular only.”

I hope that this solves your scruple on this and indicates that the other problems you raise ought to be also re-evaluated in the light of logic.
Click to expand...
First off the council of Trent didn’t say, If Protestants say that the mass. should only be said in the vernacular… it said IF ANYONE! A teaching of the church doesn’t change with the position of the time, at least it shouldn’t. Once a truth is taught, it remains truth, it doesn’t become obsolete because the times change.

Second There are Bishops all over the country who are saying the “the Mass should be said in the vernacular only” We read all the time about bishops not allowing the Tridentine Mass. Again, once a truth in faith is proclaimed, it remains truth.

Finally, to Catholic29, it isn’t obedience to Fellay or the Pope, it is obedience to the 262 Popes prior to Pope Paul the VI. Again, it goes back, once a truth is decreed by the Church, it is ALWAYS a truth, it doesn’t change with the times.

It opens up a paradox: If the church was correct in its teaching prior to Pope Paul the VI, then then traditionalists are correct in what they believe, if traditonalists are wrong in what they believe now, then the church was wrong in its teachings prior to Pope Paul the VI.

It’s not just a simple matter of obedience 2 men, it is a matter of the obedience to the entire history of the Church.
 
First off the council of Trent didn’t say, If Protestants say that the mass. should only be said in the vernacular… it said IF ANYONE! A teaching of the church doesn’t change with the position of the time, at least it shouldn’t. Once a truth is taught, it remains truth, it doesn’t become obsolete because the times change.
Click to expand...
Second There are Bishops all over the country who are saying the “the Mass should be said in the vernacular only” We read all the time about bishops not allowing the Tridentine Mass. Again, once a truth in faith is proclaimed, it remains truth.
Click to expand...
  1. Mate! I did not say that Trent said “If protestants say …” I KNOW what Trent said. I agree with what Trent said. But, at THAT time, when the Church found it necessary to define the Canon - who (apart from the protestants) was saying “the Mass should be said in the vernacular only”?
Can you please tell us who else apart from the Protestants were targeted then at that point of time?
  1. You fail to parse the words of Trent. The whole sentence is qualified by the final word ONLY. YOU do not know what the Fathers meant - but THEY DID! Very purposely they qualified the anathema to those who were saying (or, in the future might say) “that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only;” (You do not provide a source for your quote - so I shall provide one for mine! (Dogmatic Canons and Decrees, The Devin-Adair Company, 1912, Imprimatur John Cardinal Farley, June 22, 1912.
Further comment: What the Canon does NOT mean is that vernacular translations are at THAT point of time OR at any future point of time prohibited!!!

As for today - the catholic bishops are NOT “that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only;” They ARE taking advantage of the permission to celebrate Mass in the vulgar tongue - which is a logical development of Trent NOT prohibiting Mass in the vulgar tongue per se. They also are permitted to encourage (if they believe it to be pastorally beneficial) the 1962 Latin liturgy. Personally, I would “like” for them to be more generous in that regard - but, there is nothing doctrinally abberent in their preference for the vulgar tongue.

Furthermore, your elevation of your skewed interpretation of this matter to an unalterable “in perpetuity” Dogma is, simply, puerile!
You cap off the matter with the opinion that “These people (i.e. adherents to the SSPX schism) are true catholics in every sense of the word, even if they disobey the Pope in one matter.”
Click to expand...
Which, simply, demonstrates that you also do not comprehend the malice of schism - which is NEVER praiseworthy.

I applaud the fact that you attend both the normative Roman liturgy (1969) and the Indult Mass of 1962.
 
40.png
Catholic29:
http://www.zpub.com/un/pope/papaeast.jpg
Click to expand...
Just an off subject question:
Does anyone promote a crucifix modeled after this one…in home, Rosary, around the neck, a pin, etc. ?
Where did this model come from? Who has used it in past centuries?
What was wrong with the model we are all familiar with in historical Icons? If anything.
Is it merely a personal preference without any significance?
 
Sean O L said:
1…Which, simply, demonstrates that you also do not comprehend the malice of schism - which is NEVER praiseworthy.
Click to expand...
  1. The only thing I can think of that exceeds schism is…Apostasy from the Traditional, perennial Faith. I believe that is where the western churchmen are headed, if not arrived.
  2. I do not know of any diocese that promotes the NOM in Latin. For the most part, special permission has to be given. Your “ONLY” (in vernacular) is a difference with no distinction in the western church. The Latin is merely a technicality for the western church. That is, it is essentially non - existent. More rare than the Indult, by far.
  3. There are so many “methodical errors” in the ICEL English Mass translation that the whole purpose for putting it into vernacular was not for better participation (a good ruse to be sure), but for indoctrination against the more theological exactness of the Latin original.
  4. Finally, it is much more difficult to make a personal essay out of the liturgy if the exact Latin is being seen by all participants. So, just insert the monkey business into the the “official” vernacular “translation”. Print it up for the laity. VOLIA, ignorance rules for the masses in the Masses.
    Just for the fun of it, try and find the translation of Mea culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa in the English vernacular. (deletion).
    Again, find “He gave you thanks and praise” in the Latin. (addition).
So, who’s usurping the Magisterium? The ICEL, and the bishops that give practical extinction to the Latin NOM and support the ICEL monkey business, or those who see the monkey business for what it is and object?

IMHO, of course.
 
Just an off subject question:
Does anyone promote a crucifix modeled after this one…in home, Rosary, around the neck, a pin, etc. ?
Where did this model come from? Who has used it in past centuries?
What was wrong with the model we are all familiar with in historical Icons? If anything.
Is it merely a personal preference without any significance?
Click to expand...
The subject was raised some time ago on Free Republic forum. One of the comments included the observation that “only a kook” would raise such a matter; and, yes, it IS off subject. I wonder why?
 
40.png
gelsbern:
Finally, to Catholic29, it isn’t obedience to Fellay or the Pope, it is obedience to the 262 Popes prior to Pope Paul the VI. Again, it goes back, once a truth is decreed by the Church, it is ALWAYS a truth, it doesn’t change with the times.

It opens up a paradox: If the church was correct in its teaching prior to Pope Paul the VI, then then traditionalists are correct in what they believe, if traditonalists are wrong in what they believe now, then the church was wrong in its teachings prior to Pope Paul the VI.

It’s not just a simple matter of obedience 2 men, it is a matter of the obedience to the entire history of the Church.
Click to expand...
So Pope John Paul II has “not” been obedient to the 262 Popes prior to Pope Paul the VI? And what present teachings of the Church contradict what has been taught prior?

I will add that it is NOT the Tridentine Mass itself the present Church has issue with, though admittedly some bishops have, but not one or even a group of bishops compose the entire Church. If the Tridentine Mass were the issue, why would the FSSP or the Indult be in existence?

And I will elaborate that if you are an avid supporter of the SSPX above that of the present Vicar of Christ in Rome, then your de facto “Pope” would be Bishop Bernard Fellay if not yourself.:yup:

If I am off my rocker I suggest you read what Rome has to say here vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html
 
Sean O L:
The subject was raised some time ago on Free Republic forum. One of the comments included the observation that “only a kook” would raise such a matter; and, yes, it IS off subject. I wonder why?
Click to expand...
Sounds like a “kings new clothes” answer.
Or the Clinton answer to homosexuals in the military.
Oh well.
 
40.png
gelsbern:
First off, I will state that I attend NOM and TLM Indult, but I also visit SSPX chapels as well. These people are true catholics in every sense of the word, even if they disobey the Pope in one matter.

Secondly I really didn’t want to reply to this, but I have to reply because of 2 specific posts.

First off the council of Trent didn’t say, If Protestants say that the mass. should only be said in the vernacular… it said IF ANYONE! A teaching of the church doesn’t change with the position of the time, at least it shouldn’t. Once a truth is taught, it remains truth, it doesn’t become obsolete because the times change.

Second There are Bishops all over the country who are saying the “the Mass should be said in the vernacular only” We read all the time about bishops not allowing the Tridentine Mass. Again, once a truth in faith is proclaimed, it remains truth.

Finally, to Catholic29, it isn’t obedience to Fellay or the Pope, it is obedience to the 262 Popes prior to Pope Paul the VI. Again, it goes back, once a truth is decreed by the Church, it is ALWAYS a truth, it doesn’t change with the times.

It opens up a paradox: If the church was correct in its teaching prior to Pope Paul the VI, then then traditionalists are correct in what they believe, if traditonalists are wrong in what they believe now, then the church was wrong in its teachings prior to Pope Paul the VI.

It’s not just a simple matter of obedience 2 men, it is a matter of the obedience to the entire history of the Church.
Click to expand...
The point of Sean O.L. was that the words in Trent include the word “only”. It says “in the vernacular only”. This does not outlaw the vernacular.
 
Catholic29, I have read the Ecclesia Dei many times, but it’s a moot point. The FSSP and Indult were uneccesary inventions to asuage the conscience of those who saw errors in the NOM. Vatican II gave the NOM as a permitted Mass to use but it did not have the power to abrogate the TLM. The TLM could NEVER be abrogated because Pope Pius V said that no priest could be forced to say any other Mass nor be penalized for saying the TLM (See St. Pius V Bull “Quo Primum”) Therfore no permission is needed for any priest to say the TLM. Now if Pope Pius V said no priest could be forced to say a new Mass or be penalized for saying the TLM, and he was infallible in his teaching, how can Pope Paul VI and is successors say the opposite and yet also claim have the backing of infallibility.

When the NOM was released, there were bishops and cardinals in Rome, within the actual Vatican who objected to it, however most of their writings have been squelched. There are questionable things in the NOM, and still, there has been no clarifications about why things were translated the way they were, why prayers were deleted, why the Canon had to be changed, it was created, distrbuted and the faithful were told, Do this, forget about the Mass that existed for close to 1500 years.

When you were little, you were shown a color, and was told, what color it was, and you learned that and believed it, someone showed you a yellow crayon and told you it was yellow and you had faith in them, now 30 years later, someone tells you that yellow crayon is actually blue, accept it and live with it. Would you be satisfied or would you want an explanation as to why yellow is now called blue?

Anyway, you aren’t going to change my mind and I am not going to change yours, so I guess this entire discussion is moot.

Peace to you.
 
TNT wrote:
Sounds like a “kings new clothes” answer.
Or the Clinton answer to homosexuals in the military.
Oh well.
Click to expand...
To the contrary - it was an answer to a “when did you stop beating your wife?” question.
 
40.png
TNT:
Where did this model come from? Who has used it in past centuries?
What was wrong with the model we are all familiar with in historical Icons? If anything.
Is it merely a personal preference without any significance?
Click to expand...
Well here’s an off the subject response:

"The crucifix used by the Holy Father is technically his crozier, the shepherd staff that is the most senior ecclesiastical insignia of the bishop and represents his pastoral authority. As bishops and the shepherds of the Universal Church, the popes have used the crozier, but ceased doing so in the 11th century. Traditionally, the crozier traces its origins back all the way to the Apostles, and it is known to have been used in the traditional form by bishops(with an ornamental crook) from the time of Pope Celestine I (r. 422-432.

Pope Paul instituted a change upon his election. Rather than use a traditional crozier – seen as a symbol of jurisdictional authority – the pontiff adopted what was termed a pastoral staff. The staff was designed by Italian artist Lello Scorzelli in the shape of a crucifix. The staff was retained by both Popes John Paul I and John Paul II. In 1990, a new, slightly re-designed staff was presented to the pontiff in honor of his birthday. This staff is still in use today…"

ewtn.com/vexperts/showme…8&number=408039
 
40.png
gelsbern:
Catholic29, I have read the Ecclesia Dei many times, but it’s a moot point. The FSSP and Indult were uneccesary inventions to asuage the conscience of those who saw errors in the NOM. Vatican II gave the NOM as a permitted Mass to use but it did not have the power to abrogate the TLM. The TLM could NEVER be abrogated because Pope Pius V said that no priest could be forced to say any other Mass nor be penalized for saying the TLM (See St. Pius V Bull “Quo Primum”) Therfore no permission is needed for any priest to say the TLM. Now if Pope Pius V said no priest could be forced to say a new Mass or be penalized for saying the TLM, and he was infallible in his teaching, how can Pope Paul VI and is successors say the opposite and yet also claim have the backing of infallibility.

When the NOM was released, there were bishops and cardinals in Rome, within the actual Vatican who objected to it, however most of their writings have been squelched. There are questionable things in the NOM, and still, there has been no clarifications about why things were translated the way they were, why prayers were deleted, why the Canon had to be changed, it was created, distrbuted and the faithful were told, Do this, forget about the Mass that existed for close to 1500 years.

When you were little, you were shown a color, and was told, what color it was, and you learned that and believed it, someone showed you a yellow crayon and told you it was yellow and you had faith in them, now 30 years later, someone tells you that yellow crayon is actually blue, accept it and live with it. Would you be satisfied or would you want an explanation as to why yellow is now called blue?

Anyway, you aren’t going to change my mind and I am not going to change yours, so I guess this entire discussion is moot.

Peace to you.
Click to expand...
So by your assessment, forty or so years ago the system broke, and who today has the apostolic authority to right it? What did the Lord mean what he said in St. Matthew’s Gospel(Mt 16:18-19)?
“Matthew 16: 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Click to expand...
If I interpret this passage correctly, it makes no mention of any SSPX, Independent or Sedevacantist sects holding the keys for perpetuity.:yup:

But like you said, we will never change each other’s minds, so the question is moot.

Peace to you
 
40.png
gelsbern:
…First off the council of Trent didn’t say, If Protestants say that the mass. should only be said in the vernacular… it said IF ANYONE! A teaching of the church doesn’t change with the position of the time, at least it shouldn’t. Once a truth is taught, it remains truth, it doesn’t become obsolete because the times change.

Second There are Bishops all over the country who are saying the “the Mass should be said in the vernacular only” We read all the time about bishops not allowing the Tridentine Mass. Again, once a truth in faith is proclaimed, it remains truth.

Finally, to Catholic29, it isn’t obedience to Fellay or the Pope, it is obedience to the 262 Popes prior to Pope Paul the VI. Again, it goes back, once a truth is decreed by the Church, it is ALWAYS a truth, it doesn’t change with the times.

It opens up a paradox: If the church was correct in its teaching prior to Pope Paul the VI, then then traditionalists are correct in what they believe, if traditonalists are wrong in what they believe now, then the church was wrong in its teachings prior to Pope Paul the VI.

It’s not just a simple matter of obedience 2 men, it is a matter of the obedience to the entire history of the Church.
Click to expand...
A pope’s authority ceases at the end of his life and when the next pope is elected. So disciplines imposed during the reign of a pope cannot be imposed on his successors unless they permit it. And whether or not the Mass is said in the vernacular is not a truth. It is a discipline. Discpline can be changed. Truth cannot.
 
40.png
miguel:
A pope’s authority ceases at the end of his life and when the next pope is elected. So disciplines imposed during the reign of a pope cannot be imposed on his successors unless they permit it. And whether or not the Mass is said in the vernacular is not a truth. It is a discipline. Discpline can be changed. Truth cannot.
Click to expand...
You are partly correct, a Pope cannot impose discipline on his successor, however a Pope’s discipline imposed upon the clergy lower than a pope (priests, bishops, cardinals) can and continues to hold true even after a Pope’s death. Therefore if one Pope says a Priest cannot ever be forced to say a new Mass, it continues to hold true even after his death. Because of Quo Primum, the only thing a new pope would be able to do is say “Hey we got this new mass and all priests are permitted to use it and we would really like you to use it”
 
So any bishop who forbids any of their priests the use of the TLM are being disobedient. And I wonder who has the apostolic authority to correct them? The Pope it would seem, but NO universal Indult has yet to be granted by him.

The question of Quo Primum being binding on the Pope Pius V’s successors is answered by Catholic Answers staff apologist Jan Wakelin here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=3400&highlight=Primum
 
40.png
gelsbern:
You are partly correct, a Pope cannot impose discipline on his successor, however a Pope’s discipline imposed upon the clergy lower than a pope (priests, bishops, cardinals) can and continues to hold true even after a Pope’s death. Therefore if one Pope says a Priest cannot ever be forced to say a new Mass, it continues to hold true even after his death. Because of Quo Primum, the only thing a new pope would be able to do is say “Hey we got this new mass and all priests are permitted to use it and we would really like you to use it”
Click to expand...
A pope’s authority over the whole Church, and this includes clergy lower than the pope, ends with the pope’s death, and when the new pope is elected. Only one pope rules at a time. Disciplines imposed by a pope on the whole Church while he is alive can only be carried forward after his death if the reigning pope permits it.
 
40.png
miguel:
A pope’s authority over the whole Church, and this includes clergy lower than the pope, ends with the pope’s death, and when the new pope is elected. Only one pope rules at a time. Disciplines imposed by a pope on the whole Church while he is alive can only be carried forward after his death if the reigning pope permits it.
Click to expand...
I think you got it backwards.

That is the disciplines imposed by a pope stand until changed by the next pope.

Otherwise the Church would be in chaos when the pope dies as none of the disciplines are vaild until the next pope rules that they are.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
I think you got it backwards.

That is the disciplines imposed by a pope stand until changed by the next pope.

Otherwise the Church would be in chaos when the pope dies as none of the disciplines are vaild until the next pope rules that they are.
Click to expand...
I agree with your clarification, but I don’t think I have it backwards. I didn’t mean to imply that none of the disciplines are valid until the next pope rules that they are. I did mean to imply that they were in effect unless the next pope says they aren’t. A pope permits a discipline imposed by a predecessor to continue by not taking action on it. If he wants to change it, he must take action.
 
TNT said:
1. The only thing I can think of that exceeds schism is…Apostasy from the Traditional, perennial Faith. I believe that is where the western churchmen are headed, if not arrived.
Click to expand...

If you include the Holy Father in that class of “western churchmen”, then it is you who is on the verge of apostasy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top