SSPX accepts Vatican offer

[Holly3278]

Praise be to God!

 

[TimothyH]

A table has replaced the Altar.
The beautiful statues of Mary and the Saints have been replaced with wooden monstrosities that cannot even be identified by the priest (knew of this personally).
The Mass is in English, the priest is now facing the people instead of with the people toward the Tabernacle (which isn’t there anyway).
Altar rails have been pulled out.
Communion is now by standing. Communion is now distributed by Eucharistic ministers along with the priest.
The organ and choir have been replaced by a “folk band”.
Nuns no longer wear habits.
Priests are seen in the supermarket wearing polo shirts.
You expect to hear homilies on Catholics remaining steadfast in the morality they were raised in.
But now all they hear is the “brotherhood of man”

Some Benedictine monastaries have been devoid of statues, have had large freestanding altars, and have had Mass facing the community, have been without communion rails and have recieved standing for 1000 years.

Some of the things you describe are organically and authentically Catholic, even if your grandfather did not experience them at the local parish.

-Tim-

 

[Melchior_1]

Benedictine monastaries have been devoid of statues, have had large freestanding altars, and have had Mass facing the community, never had communion rails and have recieved standing for 1000 years.

-Tim-

And don’t forget that the Tabernacle being moved to the middle of the Sanctuary has only been around for like 800 years or something. We can blame those pesky Bendictines for continuing to have it off to the side since their foundation!

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Some Benedictine monastaries have been devoid of statues, have had large freestanding altars, and have had Mass facing the community, have been without communion rails and have recieved standing for 1000 years.

-Tim-

Really? (Not doubting you, I just wasn’t aware, embarrassingly enough )

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

And don’t forget that the Tabernacle being moved to the middle of the Sanctuary has only been around for like 800 years or something. We can blame those pesky Bendictines for continuing to have it off to the side since their foundation!

Really? (see my post above).

 

[YoungTradCath]

Benedictine monastaries have been devoid of statues, have had large freestanding altars, and have had Mass facing the community, never had communion rails and have recieved standing for 1000 years.

-Tim-

And don’t forget that the Tabernacle being moved to the middle of the Sanctuary has only been around for like 800 years or something. We can blame those pesky Bendictines for continuing to have it off to the side since their foundation!

What a Benedictine, a Franciscan, or any other religious does has little to do with what a parish in the secular world does. Hence why they are religious. That is not to say that religious and parishes should necessarily not influence each other sometimes, but the idea of, “Religious does ___, ergo it is acceptable and prudent in parishes,” or vice versa, is wrong.

I do not understand why what religious do is supposed to be a qualifier in the realm of what is acceptable and prudent for a secular parish. I have seen that argument several times here. It is no more just to force religious practices into parish life than it is to force parish practices into religious life. It would be quite silly to force Franciscans to build their chapels in the Rococo style, just as it is quite silly to see parishes building monastically-bare churches, although thankfully neither of much is happening anymore.

 

[TrueLight]

What a Benedictine, a Franciscan, or any other religious does has little to do with what a parish in the secular world does. Hence why they are religious. That is not to say that religious and parishes should necessarily not influence each other sometimes, but the idea of, “Religious does ___, ergo it is acceptable and prudent in parishes,” or vice versa, is wrong.

I do not understand why what religious do is supposed to be a qualifier in the realm of what is acceptable and prudent for a secular parish. I have seen that argument several times here. It is no more just to force religious practices into parish life than it is to force parish practices into religious life.

Unless of course the parish is run by Religious.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Unless of course the parish is run by Religious.

Of course.

 

[PazzoGrande]

Really? (Not doubting you, I just wasn’t aware, embarrassingly enough )

No kiddin, I didn’t know that either.

What’s the reason? Is it because those are expensive and this is their way of practising poverty? Are Icons used?

Been meaning to read the Rules of different orders, I should quit procrastinating on that. So much to learn!

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

What a Benedictine, a Franciscan, or any other religious does has little to do with what a parish in the secular world does. Hence why they are religious. That is not to say that religious and parishes should necessarily not influence each other sometimes, but the idea of, “Religious does ___, ergo it is acceptable and prudent in parishes,” or vice versa, is wrong.

I do not understand why what religious do is supposed to be a qualifier in the realm of what is acceptable and prudent for a secular parish. I have seen that argument several times here. It is no more just to force religious practices into parish life than it is to force parish practices into religious life. It would be quite silly to force Franciscans to build their chapels in the Rococo style, just as it is quite silly to see parishes building monastically-bare churches, although thankfully neither of much is happening anymore.

The Discalced Carmelites are behind a grill when they attend Mass. Maybe we should do that for our churches, too? Seriously, I see this so many times that people mention what certain orders do, thus it must be a great idea to implement it in all parishes. The Franciscans have bare bones churches (or so someone told me), so therefore it’s a great idea to remove ornamentation and statues!

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

No kiddin, I didn’t know that either.

What’s the reason? Is it because those are expensive and this is their way of practising poverty? Are Icons used?

Been meaning to read the Rules of different orders, I should quit procrastinating on that. So much to learn!

You will love the Rule of St Benedict. Just so practical.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

What a Benedictine, a Franciscan, or any other religious does has little to do with what a parish in the secular world does. Hence why they are religious. That is not to say that religious and parishes should necessarily not influence each other sometimes, but the idea of, “Religious does ___, ergo it is acceptable and prudent in parishes,” or vice versa, is wrong.

I do not understand why what religious do is supposed to be a qualifier in the realm of what is acceptable and prudent for a secular parish. I have seen that argument several times here. It is no more just to force religious practices into parish life than it is to force parish practices into religious life. It would be quite silly to force Franciscans to build their chapels in the Rococo style, just as it is quite silly to see parishes building monastically-bare churches, although thankfully neither of much is happening anymore.

I don’t see people saying that parishes should be run as monastic chapels are. What I get from many of those sorts of posts is just the understanding that “what is traditional” can have more than one answer. What we often think of as traditional, is not what has been the case in all times and places historically.

If we say we liked how things were at St. Sebastian in 1945 in New York, that is one thing. To say that how things were at that parish in that timeframe is the total sum of “traditional” is incorrect.

Practices that have affected thousands of Catholics for thousands of years are traditional. Many lay people have been formed by monastic practices over the years. The towns people living near monasteries, the families of men and women who joined, the lay folk formed by priests and bishops who were in turn formed by monastics, etc.

As the old saying goes though, “the church is bigger on the inside”. There is room for all sorts of tastes from franciscan plain to rococo.

 

[porthos11]

vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrians-lefebvrianos-14410/

Does this mean they’re real Catholics now?

Are you deliberately trying to undermine the Pope’s desire for reconciliation with the SSPX or do you just not realize how offensive that is?

There is an adage in Information Security that also applies here:

“Do not attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity.”

Of course, I don’t mean to say that the OP is stupid, but what the adage says still holds. The OP most likely meant no insult and there’s no need to bite his head off. The printed word does not carry the full range of a person’s expression.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I don’t see people saying that parishes should be run as monastic chapels are. What I get from many of those sorts of posts is just the understanding that “what is traditional” can have more than one answer. What we often think of as traditional, is not what has been the case in all times and places historically.

If we say we liked how things were at St. Sebastian in 1945 in New York, that is one thing. To say that how things were at that parish in that timeframe is the total sum of “traditional” is incorrect.

Practices that have affected thousands of Catholics for thousands of years are traditional. Many lay people have been formed by monastic practices over the years. The towns people living near monasteries, the families of men and women who joined, the lay folk formed by priests and bishops who were in turn formed by monastics, etc.

As the old saying goes though, “the church is bigger on the inside”. There is room for all sorts of tastes from franciscan plain to rococo.

You are right. However, most people here are not talking about religious. We almost exclusively talk about secular parishes on these forums unless a thread or post mentions otherwise. So when we are talking about unspecific tradition, we are most likely, as in this case, talking about the tradition of secular parishes. Not religious.

So when we are talking for almost an entire thread about secular parish life (or some aspect of it) and then someone says, “But the [insert religious group here] have done it the other way for 1257 years,” it is at least disingenuous, and at worst distasteful to imply with that statement that it must be okay in parish life. Now I understand how some religious must have felt when they were forced to live like secular priests before Vatican II. It’s just the opposite now, we’ve got people trying to justify all kinds of practices in parishes with the “But the religious do it” argument.

This isn’t about generic tradition. It is about parish tradition, which is very, very, very different from religious tradition. We can never say, “Well, they do it, so it’s okay for us too.” We HAVE to consider religious and parish tradition separately, even if there are similarities sometimes.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

You are right. However, most people here are not talking about religious. We almost exclusively talk about secular parishes on these forums unless a thread or post mentions otherwise. So when we are talking about unspecific tradition, we are most likely, as in this case, talking about the tradition of secular parishes. Not religious.

So when we are talking for almost an entire thread about secular parish life (or some aspect of it) and then someone says, “But the [insert religious group here] have done it the other way for 1257 years,” it is at least disingenuous, and at worst distasteful to imply with that statement that it must be okay in parish life. Now I understand how some religious must have felt when they were forced to live like secular priests before Vatican II. It’s just the opposite now, we’ve got people trying to justify all kinds of practices in parishes with the “But the religious do it” argument.

This isn’t about generic tradition. It is about parish tradition, which is very, very, very different from religious tradition. We can never say, “Well, they do it, so it’s okay for us too.” We HAVE to examine religious and parish tradition separately.

Well said. Thank you. I have noticed this trend as well and I think it needs to be addressed. The default position is that we are discussing traditional secular life, not traditional religious life.

• PAX

 

[Transformer]

I am slightly concerned that this is not quite as certain as some are suggesting.

Apparently the text of the Preamble sent by Fellay includes some non-substantial changes compared to the version originally drafted by the Vatican Authorities. Readers may recall that the Ecclesia Dei commission did not want to make the document (two closely written pages) public because they wanted to leave open the possibility for small changes that would not alter the meaning of the Preamble.

Every news source I’ve read says that Fellay’s modifications were non-substantial, but how do they know that, when none of us have seen the original document or the altered version? If the changes are totally immaterial, why bother making changes at all and risking further problems?

Also, what are the chances that the CDF or Pope Benedict will still have a problem with Fellay’s response? The idea seems to be that this is just a formality and that reconciliation is a done deal. Maybe it is, but I don’t quite see it that positively yet.

All of the above are serious questions; I’m not trying to challenge anyone’s honesty or criticize the reconciliation process. I am sincerely interested in learning more from those more knowledgeable than I am.

 

[kozlosap]

I find your question insulting to my Catholic brethren. I’m not in the SSPX but what I’ve found is they are the best Catholics I know. In the end, the Vatican will owe them an engraved apology and Lefebvre will be one day made a saint. Deo gratias.

Hopefully not in my lifetime…

 

[YoungTradCath]

I am slightly concerned that this is not quite as certain as some are suggesting.

Every news source I’ve read says that Fellay’s modifications were non-substantial, but how do they know that, when none of us have seen the original document or the altered version? If the changes are totally immaterial, why bother making changes at all and risking further problems?

Also, what are the chances that the CDF or Pope Benedict will still have a problem with Fellay’s response? The idea seems to be that this is just a formality and that reconciliation is a done deal. Maybe it is, but I don’t quite see it that positively yet.

All of the above are serious questions; I’m not trying to challenge anyone’s honesty or criticize the reconciliation process. I am sincerely interested in learning more from those more knowledgeable than I am.

I imagine it really boils down to diplomatic waiting. I would not be surprised if both sides know the outcome already (positive or negative result immaterial to this point) and are just waiting to make it “look” like stuff is going on.

 

[TimothyH]

Really? (Not doubting you, I just wasn’t aware, embarrassingly enough )

I’m not trying to prove anyone wrong or embarrass anyone. That’s not my point. I was a bit too brief in my post.

It’s just funny to me when people insist that certain things are incorrect when they have been practiced in the Catholic Church, even encouraged for centuries. Not everything is universal.

There was a debate about holding our hands palm to palm to pray and someone insisted that it was the only way a Catholic was to pray. Another informed everyone that the Dominicans are forbidden from praying that way. They are required by their rule to keep their hands folded humbly or out of sight when they pray.

Here is a freestanding altar built in 1946.

Here is another freestanding altar at a Church built in 1147.

What a Benedictine, a Franciscan, or any other religious does has little to do with what a parish in the secular world does. Hence why they are religious. That is not to say that religious and parishes should necessarily not influence each other sometimes, but the idea of, “Religious does ___, ergo it is acceptable and prudent in parishes,” or vice versa, is wrong.

I do not understand why what religious do is supposed to be a qualifier in the realm of what is acceptable and prudent for a secular parish. I have seen that argument several times here. It is no more just to force religious practices into parish life than it is to force parish practices into religious life. It would be quite silly to force Franciscans to build their chapels in the Rococo style, just as it is quite silly to see parishes building monastically-bare churches, although thankfully neither of much is happening anymore.

That’s a valid argument. I"m not saying you convinced me, but I am saying that your argument does make a good point. I’m neither contesting nor agreeing with you. That’s not my point and I probably could have been clearer in my post about those practices being used for 1000 years.

My point was not to contest which practice was bad or good, but to clarify that they are not universal in the Church, that’s all. Some believe mistakenly that communion rails were universal and that their removal is an innovation. The same with high altars, bells, statues, bells, praying palm to palm, recieving on the knees, gregorian chant, etc., etc., etc. We can have a discussion about how much influence there should be from religious to secular and back. It would be a good discussion. I have asked four times on threads with heavy traffic why people feel that there should be little to no influence betwen religious and secular parishes and quite frankly, you were the only who even attempted an answer. It would make a good thread if you would care to start.

To get back on topic, the reason I brought it up, was in response to a post which seemed to posit the idea that the SSPX way was the right way or that it was the only way. It’s clearly not the only way. We can discuss what is right for secular parishes vs. religious but I warn you that if SSPX becomes a prelature, I’ll use your argument against you that thier 550 year old traditions may not be “acceptable and prudent” in ordinary neighborhood parishes.

-Tim-

 

[TempleServant]

The post-Vatican II argument is this:

“The exception is now the rule”.

The result: the devastation of secular parish life.

Like: You will have a rock band because in 1107 St. Whoever allowed a violin at Mass. You will have a vernacular Mass because the [insert sect here] had it in the 16th century. Or something.

What a swizz.

Go to a sung latin Mass with an organ on a Marian feast day and weep for what we have been deprived of.