SSPX...come home

[Dee_S]

Oh yeah, when do I get to have an avatar?

This link will get you to that information here on CAF - FAQ
forums.catholic-questions.org/faq.php?s=&securitytoken=1360332355-ec20e29f6c8e634bf7595f6c88a5d5a86829f916&do=search&q=avatar&match=all&titlesonly=0

curious to see what you choose

 

[mgsk]

Think that brings and end to that - unless there is a personal angle that anyone wishes to discuss i.e. how did this affect your Faith and if and how you came to realise it.

It doesn’t bring an end to much, actually. We know +Ottaviani was completely blind by the time this “retraction” was given to him to be signed by Msgr Agustoni (who was on the Consilium which designed the NO). But even if he did change his position, that still leaves +Bacci and the rest of the theologians. Plus the arguments themselves.

 

[Dee_S]

It doesn’t bring an end to much, actually. We know +Ottaviani was completely blind by the time this “retraction” was given to him to be signed by Msgr Agustoni (who was on the Consilium which designed the NO). But even if he did change his position, that still leaves +Bacci and the rest of the theologians. Plus the arguments themselves.

That’s true - but that’s very old stuff on the whole. Anything newer than that going around? What I was hoping to see here is how that ‘intervention’ impacted on the ‘man/woman in the pew’.

For instance, did it undermine their confidence in the Church? Was it a cause of them nurturing a mistrust of the Church? Was it yet ‘another brick in the wall’ for some?

It has been used, right up until now (here on this thread too)to raise a ? over the decisions made by the Church in that regard and more importantly to reinforce the resistance by certain groups as to these wrongness of said decisions. How does that help the faithful keep their trust in the Church? And “to whom shall they go…” surely not to the rebel child that is at odds with his father?

I still think that taking an objective look at both sides of this story will result in “bringing an end” to the conviction that some people have that the Church somehow failed them.

Then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, said of abuses in celebration of the liturgy: “In the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over the centuries and replaced it – as in a manufacturing process – with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”[40][41]** But of the revision of the Roman Missal he wrote: “There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture.”[42]**
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_of_Paul_VI#cite_note-42

Similarly, Pope John Paul II said of the Paul VI revision of the liturgy: “This work was undertaken in accordance with the conciliar principles of fidelity to tradition and openness to legitimate development, and so it is possible to say that the reform of the Liturgy is strictly traditional and ‘in accordance with the ancient usage of the holy Fathers’.”[43]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_of_Paul_VI

 

[Dee_S]

:coffeeread:just the other day, a friend here told me something that took me way back in time, about 15 years or so. To the time when I believed everything I read or heard in the SSPX. She told me that a friend of hers (still ‘in’ the SSPX) was very concerned about what she had been told by her priest. What she had been told was that:

1. The ordinations of priests since Vatican II were suspect, due to there being something incorrect or left out of the ordination ceremony, so it was possible that their confessions may be invalid.
2. Not to go to a conciliar priest for confession either, as their advice may be erroneous in some way that would do her no good at all.

Looking back now, my mind boggles to think that they had me believing all that. I also believed what they said about the New Mass being ‘evil’ or bad ( a continued claim) and that the consecration was suspect due to the possible intentions of the priest.

I was so convinced that when I went without mass or confession at one time for several weeks when I was away from home and could not get to an SSPX chapel or ‘traditional’ priest. There was the sweetest little Catholic church nearby, but so altered was my mindset, that I would not set foot in it.
(BTW I don’t have to prove these assertions because they are there to be seen on their website FAQ by Fr Peter Scott)

How many others who sit in their pews, who love the Mass (I also love it), love tradition etc. are sitting there simply because, like me, they believe what they are told and what they read - without ever entertaining the idea that perhaps….what they have been told is wrong?

 

[eustachius234]

“Anything newer than that going around?”

I direct you again to Liturgical Shipwreck by Michael Davies
catholictradition.org/Eucharist/shipwreck.htm

“I have been profoundly touched by the news of the death of Michael Davies. I had the good fortune to meet him several times and I found him as a man of deep faith and ready to embrace suffering. Ever since the Council he put all his energy into the service of the Faith and left us important publications especially about the Sacred Liturgy. Even though he suffered from the Church in many ways in his time, he always truly remained a man of the Church. He knew that the Lord founded His Church on the rock of St Peter and that the Faith can find its fullness and maturity only in union with the successor of St Peter. Therefore we can be confident that the Lord opened wide for him the gates of heaven. We commend his soul to the Lord’s mercy.” – Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, 9 November 2004

Michael Davies purpose for writing the booklet:

“I intend to prove that, as already mentioned, the very composition of a New Order of the Mass is a break with tradition, that the changes made in the Traditional Mass of the Roman Rite since Vatican Council II go far beyond what that Council authorized and, in some cases, actually contradict what it mandated. I propose to show that we have been the witnesses of a revolution, rather than a reform, and that the revolution of Pope Paul VI has produced no good fruits to compensate for its destruction of our almost 2,000-year-old liturgical inheritance.”

 

[pnewton]

Michael Davies purpose for writing the booklet:

“I intend to prove that, as already mentioned, the very composition of a New Order of the Mass is a break with tradition.”

I would say if he uses the word “prove”, his use of English is far less than exact. Cardinal Ratzinger does not support this “break” in his liturgy book. Evidence is not proof. Those who claim otherwise aren’t worth the time reading.

 

[Lormar]

Michael Davies had a great change of heart (and mind) before he died from cancer. In fact, he was so troubled by one of the books he wrote (I believe it was Pope Paul’s New Mass) that he edited the book considerably. The republished version of the book is not the same as the original.

Funny how in the face of death some things look differently to us.

 

[RadRomCath]

:coffeeread:just the other day, a friend here told me something that took me way back in time, about 15 years or so. To the time when I believed everything I read or heard in the SSPX. She told me that a friend of hers (still ‘in’ the SSPX) was very concerned about what she had been told by her priest. What she had been told was that:

1. The ordinations of priests since Vatican II were suspect, due to there being something incorrect or left out of the ordination ceremony, so it was possible that their confessions may be invalid.
2. Not to go to a conciliar priest for confession either, as their advice may be erroneous in some way that would do her no good at all.

Looking back now, my mind boggles to think that they had me believing all that. I also believed what they said about the New Mass being ‘evil’ or bad ( a continued claim) and that the consecration was suspect due to the possible intentions of the priest.

I was so convinced that when I went without mass or confession at one time for several weeks when I was away from home and could not get to an SSPX chapel or ‘traditional’ priest. There was the sweetest little Catholic church nearby, but so altered was my mindset, that I would not set foot in it.
(BTW I don’t have to prove these assertions because they are there to be seen on their website FAQ by Fr Peter Scott)

How many others who sit in their pews, who love the Mass (I also love it), love tradition etc. are sitting there simply because, like me, they believe what they are told and what they read - without ever entertaining the idea that perhaps….what they have been told is wrong?

What did they think was incorrect or left out of the ordination ceremony?

What about the New Mass did they say was “evil” or bad?

 

[Dee_S]

Michael Davies had a great change of heart (and mind) before he died from cancer. In fact, he was so troubled by one of the books he wrote (I believe it was Pope Paul’s New Mass) that he edited the book considerably. The republished version of the book is not the same as the original.

Funny how in the face of death some things look differently to us.

I had also heard the same about his change of heart and direction. It seems to make sense given what then Cardinal Ratzinger said of him at his death.

I can’t seem to find anything, so if anyone has information to share, please let us have it

 

[Dee_S]

I would say if he uses the word “prove”, his use of English is far less than exact. Cardinal Ratzinger does not support this “break” in his liturgy book. Evidence is not proof. Those who claim otherwise aren’t worth the time reading.

I agree. Evidence, no matter how skilfully put, is not proof.

I recall listening to many of his audio tapes back in the day. He was an exciting orator, and wove a very good story around his subject , but I was always aware of the melodramatic overtones that after a while lose their appeal. In face, the point at which I stopped having anything to do with him at all, was due to a description he gave of Our Lord bleeding on the cross at His crucifixion. Not sure if I want to repeat the analogy he used here, suffice to say that to refer to Our Lord several times as “bleeding like a …” was so repulsive that, even right now, it makes me upset. To me, he had gone too far…and that was that! The show was over and I could no longer regard him as credible in any way.

That he served and suffered for his Faith, is commendable and I was glad to learn of the retractions he was making towards the end of his earthly journey.

 

[Dee_S]

What did they think was incorrect or left out of the ordination ceremony?

Lots!! Fr Peter Scott has written a lengthy article on whether ‘conciliar priests’ who come to traditional should be conditionally ordained. And this train of thought began way back then, with Archbishop Lefebvre, who he quotes liberally in his document.

“There can be no doubt that Archbishop Lefebvre
entertained serious doubts as to the intention of some
conciliar bishops when they ordain priests. In Open
Letter to Confused Catholics (p.50), he points out that the
doubt that overhangs the other sacraments also applies
to the ordination of priests and gives examples, asking
the question: “Are they true priests at all? Put it another
way, are their ordinations valid?” He goes on to explain
the reason why he considers that a doubt exists over
the ordaining bishop’s intention, for it is frequently
no longer the intention of ordaining a priest to offer
sacrifice:”

I can only repeat, that it was a familiar theme to us when there and for the most part, we never doubted or questioned Now, you may say, quite rightly, “how is it that laypeople in the SSPX do not question what is proposed to them” - because it was not just me or the odd individual - it is ***everyone ***(almost without exception)

Looking at it head on, and trying to apply some sort of logic here, can it be said that all laypeople in the Church right now or even all laypeople in one particular parish right now, all think and believe in the same way? Something odd about this, it’s almost a phenomena that worldwide, over a 40 year timespan, that nothing varies more than a degree or two? My experiences of 15 years ago, are still being experienced now several continents away. (now don’t all cringe and break out in hives, at my use of the word experiences, I use it here in it’s true sense)

What about the New Mass did they say was “evil” or bad?

Everything !!

Is the Novus Ordo Mass invalid, or sacrilegious, and should I assist at it when I have no alternative?
"However, even if we could be certain of the validity of the Novus Ordo Masses celebrated in today’s Conciliar churches, it does not follow that they are pleasing to God. Much to the contrary, they are objectively sacrilegious, even if those who assist at them are not aware of it."

“However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing,…”

"Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass…**even if it is the only Mass available. [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott](my bold)**

…how is it that almost everyone there accepts and obeys this…?

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Having read every viewpoint on the OF vs EF Mass it is clear to me that the whole dispute boils down to a distinction that neither side seems able to make.

The Mass can be viewed from two angles:

1. As officially laid down in the Missal, with the prescribed prayers and rubrics. ***This ***is the Mass that Rome requires the SSPX accept as valid and licit. For me, a study of the text in the missal shows nothing that is a) heretical, b) sacrilegious or c) even just disrespectful. The OF as it stands in the missal is something no Catholic can find objectionable to the point that in conscience he has to stay away from it. There are parts of the Mass one could criticize: the Offertory prayers that do not clearly affirm that what is being offered is Christ Himself, soon to be the Sacrificial Victim. Or the addition of ‘For Thine is the Kingdom, the Power and the Glory’ after the Our Father - a sop to Protestants. None of this, however, adds up to anything very serious.

2. As celebrated in parishes. This is another matter entirely. One can’t really say that there is one OF Mass celebrated in churches around the world. What exists is a kaleidoscope of liturgies, varying from Sung High Mass in Latin to the most grotesque of clown and puppet travesties. As I mentioned in another thread, it was Bishop Williamson himself who encouraged Traditional Catholics in one town to attend an OF Mass celebrated in Latin by a very conservative Jesuit priest. One needs to make distinctions.

The point here is that Rome does not endorse perversions of the liturgy. Nor are Catholics obliged to attend such Masses. For me there is a tipping point, beyond which the irritating becomes the insupportable. In another thread it was affirmed that a Catholic has the obligation of attending a Mass, no matter how bizarre, if it is celebrated in a church/chapel in good standing with the local diocese and is the only Mass within reach. I disagree with this. Catholics who do so might possibly survive the regular weekly assault on their spiritual sensibilities (by keeping their noses in their missals, praying a rosary, or whatever), but their children will not.

The SSPX, then, does and doesn’t have a point. It rejects liturgical buffoonery and it is right to do so. But it throws out the baby with the bathwater and rejects as evil per se a Mass which is not. One needs to keep in mind that the OF has been the standard Mass of the Church for over 40 years, promulgated and upheld by Rome. That’s two generations. If it is ‘evil’ then the only practical conclusion one can come to is that Christ has abandoned His Church.

Rome has a point (of course) but needs to make the distinction given above. Nobody is obliging the SSPX to endorse liturgical dancers, puppets, ceramic bowls for chalices, etc. The only thing Rome is obliging acceptance of is what has been officially promulgated, and none of the abuses that give the OF such a bad smell have the Church’s placet.

In the end, the best way of reconciling SSPXers is to eradicate the abuses. Nobody seems quite ready to do that just yet. But until it is done, the SSPX will always be able to say ‘I told you so.’

 

[RadRomCath]

Having read every viewpoint on the OF vs EF Mass it is

One needs to keep in mind that the OF has been the standard Mass of the Church for over 40 years, promulgated and upheld by Rome. That’s two generations. If it is ‘evil’ then the only practical conclusion one can come to is that Christ has abandoned His Church.

That is not the only practical conclusion. That conclusion is simplistic and precluded by Scripture. However, this forum is censored such that practical conclusions which are viable in light of Scripture, Papal Encylcicals, and writings of learned saints may not be discussed.

 

[jacobhalo]

It looked like they were going to normalize until very recently. Apparently most SSPX desire to set up their own religion. Otherwise, why would they turn down the offer for a Prelature? Is their raison d’etre to forever sit on the sidelines and critizice? That’s how many Protestant denominations were founded. Henry thought he was still Catholic the way SSPX believe they are still Catholic. Many Anglicans think they are catholic; but the reality is different. In a hundred years, SSPX’s ties to Rome will just be historic in the same way the Lutherans and Anglicans are.

The same as the Lutherans and Anglicans? Pius X people have never left the church. The church left them with its heretical Vatican II. According to the Council of Trent, the mass was never to be changed. No one except the celebrating priest could drink from the chalice, not even a priest who was not saying mass. We now have everyone and their brother handing out communion and drinking from the chalice.

Henry VIII wanted a divorce but the church precepts were against it. The church did not change the divorce statute for King Henry as Vatican II changed many of the laws of the church to placate the non-catholic churches. The Catholic church has lost its identity.

 

[Hasire]

The same as the Lutherans and Anglicans? Pius X people have never left the church. The church left them with its heretical Vatican II. According to the Council of Trent, the mass was never to be changed. No one except the celebrating priest could drink from the chalice, not even a priest who was not saying mass. We now have everyone and their brother handing out communion and drinking from the chalice.

Henry VIII wanted a divorce but the church precepts were against it. The church did not change the divorce statute for King Henry as Vatican II changed many of the laws of the church to placate the non-catholic churches. The Catholic church has lost its identity.

It’s so similar, almost an analogy to St. Athanasius Vs. The World. The whole world (including Rome) apostacized to Arianism, so it was Athanasius job to set it back straight. The SSPX would be the modern-day Athanasius’.

If it happened in the past, it can happen again.

 

[pnewton]

That is not the only practical conclusion. That conclusion is simplistic and precluded by Scripture. However, this forum is censored such that practical conclusions which are viable in light of Scripture, Papal Encylcicals, and writings of learned saints may not be discussed.

I am familiar with the SSPX position on this, yet I can not help but find it to be be more tenuous as time progresses. More and more one has to see a major goof by God. Gamaliel used this same logic to test, as it were, the rising of Christianity. I would hope that there is some amount of time short of eternity that people can use to see if God is truly in some movement.

 

[Dee_S]

The same as the Lutherans and Anglicans? Pius X people have never left the church. The church left them with its heretical Vatican II. According to the Council of Trent, the mass was never to be changed. No one except the celebrating priest could drink from the chalice, not even a priest who was not saying mass. We now have everyone and their brother handing out communion and drinking from the chalice.

On this forum it is not allowed to “Church bash” and saying that Vatican II is heretical will get you and us here into trouble - because this is a Catholic forum and it firmly enforces the obedience and respect we owe to the Holy Father and the Church. If your statement had been for example “I was told that Vatican II was heretical, but I …etc” - this thread is for discussion/sharing of how being or having been a trad has influenced your life, in the hopes we can be of use in the bigger picture.

Archbishop Mueller has already addressed this issue:

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – Traditionalist and progressive camps that see the Second Vatican Council as breaking with the truth both espouse a “heretical interpretation” of the council and its aims, said the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

What Pope Benedict XVI has termed “the hermeneutic of reform, of renewal in continuity” is the “only possible interpretation according to the principles of Catholic theology,” Archbishop Gerhard Muller said in remarks published Nov. 29.

“Outside this sole orthodox interpretation unfortunately exists a heretical interpretation, that is, a hermeneutic of rupture, (found) both on the progressive front and on the traditionalist” side, the archbishop said.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1205009.htm

It does seem like “the Church left us” when we are faced with dozens of abuses while we Faithful are trying to practice this in peace. But, take a look at this article (link posted) and you will see how much the CDW has been doing over the years to correct abuses - we are also needed to help fight against these abuses - but from within the Church of course, where it will be much more effective that on the outside.

These extracts are from an article on EWTN about lay (extraordinary) ministers of the Eucharist - make it clear that this is consider an abuse by the Church, who has written several instructions over the years to address them:
“In the same year as Dominicae coenae and seven years after Immensae caritatis, the Congregation for Divine Worship once more turned its attention to the topic of lay ministers in a document called Inaestimabile donum,subtitled “Norms on the Worship of the Eucharist.” The Introduction laments the distressing number of corruptions that have distorted the liturgical renewal intended by the Second Vatican Council.**”

“Although other parts of the document also touch on abuses in lay ministry, sections 9 and 10 contain the most relevant statement:
Communion is a gift of the Lord, given to the faithful through the minister appointed for the purpose. It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice; still less that they should hand them from one to another. The faithful, whether religious or lay, who are authorized as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist can distribute Communion only when there is no priest, deacon or acolyte, when the priest is impeded by illness or advanced age, or when the number of the faithful going to communion is so large as to make the celebration of Mass excessively long. Accordingly,* a reprehensible attitude is shown by those priests who, though present at the celebration, refrain from distributing Communion and leave this task to the laity*****.**”
ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/EXTRMIN.HTM

 

[Dee_S]

In the end, the best way of reconciling SSPXers is to eradicate the abuses. Nobody seems quite ready to do that just yet. But until it is done, the SSPX will always be able to say ‘I told you so.’

The SSPX are wasting a valuable opportunity to contribute by not accepting the Personal Prelature as repeatedly offered over many years now, and the regularization of their organization.

Throughout the history of the Church there have always been problems - to say that the Church must change back to the way that suits the SSPX - that the Church must eradicate the abuses first - before they will consider “coming home to their Father’s house” - is self serving.

The Holy Father’s of the past 27 years have done their duty by following after them with repeated entreaties/appeals as any caring parent would do. Does the rebel child not have a duty to their parent? Suppose if they are bent on having their own way, they are hardly capable of helping sort out problems “at home”.

Your blanket condemnation that “nobody seems quite ready to do that” is simply not true. See the link in my previous post, it shows how much effort the CDW has been putting in over the years.

Add to that the words of Pope Paul VI in his letter to Archbishop Lefebvre in 1976:
Moreover, you act as if you had a particular role in this regard. But the mission of discerning and remedying the abuses is first of all Ours; it is the mission of all the bishops who work together with Us. Indeed We do not cease to raise Our voice against these excesses: Our discourse to the consistory of last May 21 repeated this in clear terms. More than anyone else We hear the suffering of distressed Christians, and We respond to the cry of the faithful longing for faith and the spiritual life. This is not the place to remind you, brother, of all the acts of Our pontificate that testify to Our constant concern to ensure for the church fidelity to the true tradition, and to enable her with God’s grace to face the present and future.
jloughnan.tripod.com/pvi2lefebvre.htm

There is so much available on what each Pope has said and done in this regard…

http://jloughnan.tripod.com/pvi2lefebvre.htm

http://jloughnan.tripod.com/pvi2lefebvre.htm

 

[Wildkit]

It’s so similar, almost an analogy to St. Athanasius Vs. The World. The whole world (including Rome) apostacized to Arianism, so it was Athanasius job to set it back straight. The SSPX would be the modern-day Athanasius’.

If it happened in the past, it can happen again.

Isn’t it great to be so much smarter than everyone else, er what were all of the non-Arian bishops’ position including the Pope’s? I myself just like to think I am better than a brethren, but I continue to be surprised by the size and following of these beliefs. I believe roughly there are 1.2 Billion members who follow the magesterium and Orthodox are roughly 400 million. Why can’t we learn from each other or are so many others just that much smarter?

 

[mgsk]

Isn’t it great to be so much smarter than everyone else, er what were all of the non-Arian bishops’ position including the Pope’s?

Wait, what? By all accounts, at the time of St. Athanasius, it was the majority of the clergy who had fallen into objective heresy (Arianism).

I believe roughly there are 1.2 Billion members who follow the magesterium

Don’t we all wish! But it’s it’s a much smaller number than the 1.2billion who actually follow the Magisterium.