SSPX communique to Rome

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mark1970
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
JReducation:
There are two qualifiers there. The indult is for any country where the conference of bishops agrees to it. **What is always allowed is for an individual bishop not to accept the indult. You can’t force what’s optional.
**
The second qualifier is rather interesting. If your bishop is an exempt religious he can act independently of the conference. If the conference bans CITH and your Franciscan or Dominican bishops wants it, there is no bishop on earth who can intervene. Once the Holy See says that it is permissible, the exempt religious is not bound by any other law except the mind of the pope. The people and the local clergy have no voice over a bishop who happens to be an exempt religious as well.

There was always a confusion in the Code of Canon Law of 1917 about religious who were ordained bishop. The wording was not clear. It made it sound as if they ceased to be religious. The Code of 1983 clarified. They remain members of their religious communities. They retain all of the rights and duties of that come with their profession of vows. They remain bound to the rule and constitutions of their community, except in matters that are in conflict with their duties as bishop. They also retain the right to wear their habit and if they are exempt religious, they continue to be exempt religious. Those people in their diocese have to accommodate to them, as long as it’s not a hardship.

If the Dominicans pray 15 decades of the rosary daily, the Dominican bishop cannot impose this on his diocese. That would be a hardship for some people. On the other hand, if the Dominican bishop sacrifices some ministries in order to put more money and resources into education and catechesis, this is not a hardship and is reasonable for a Dominican Friar. Preaching is their mission.
Thanks for your answer Brother.

In Argentina, some Bishops didn’t liked Mons. Laise decision to not apply the indult. For example, Mons Sueldo, then President of the Liturgy Commission, he said:

*“la norma está por encima del obispo y fue aceptada por la Conferencia Episcopal Argentina, en conformidad con la Santa Sede. De ahí en más la cuestión es del fiel, no del pastor.” *

"The norm is above the bishop and was accepted by the Episcopal Conference of Argentina, in accordance with the Holy See. From then on the issue is of the faithful, not the pastor. "

The media also painted him as a rebel.

The info is from (in Spanish):

54462237-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/secretummeummihi/Comunionenlamanoprologos1y2edici%C3%B3n.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7cp4yg8mYIGikhdzA9iKHSjoafsm4nhhAqX1teGyjnAKvrs7IEMimMcQ7FV2AU51ciP_3fTEWx1ruzSD8SpVl5Nqza54rTBPXHoEEG6WuTCGazsW9xGwAiJvjagFN2L8_RXHsVQxJRhTej-hQMMWaJIzkJSd4JXR1QHfpVhhWi7oHY6mHRgnUtq2kgpyWEkUXrBBJEA2x-ecArc4erRxheYk5vY0KKsG5aRJc-dch8-_C2P1Vr5gFpmkg81uwJXMyK-fK_e-&attredirects=0

From Memoriale Domini:

Where a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails, the Holy See—wishing to help them fulfill their task, often difficult as it is nowadays—lays on those conferences the task of weighing carefully whatever special circumstances may exist there, taking care to avoid any risk of lack of respect or of false opinions with regard to the Blessed Eucharist, and to avoid any other ill effects that may follow.”

In Colombia and Argentina, the practice was introduced. The custom was not common before the Indult. Mons. Laise attest to that (the Argentine case). Is explained in his book, and in this link (in Spanish):

www3.planalfa.es/santamariareina/laise.htm

From Colombia, we have this words said by Fr. José Vicente Echeverry, who said "aquí en Colombia hasta ahora se inicia” * (here in Colombia until now starts).

*El Tiempo, Dic-24-1991, page 5B

The Bishops Conference prepared a brochure for the introduction of the practice. *“El cuerpo de Cristo en nuestras manos” * (The body of Christ in our hands)

Blessings!

🙂
 
At what point on your seven levels of Catholics can one actually call themselves Catholic? Do you have to reach a certain level or hold a 4 out of 7 majority?🤷
When I wrote this, which was for a theology class that I was teaching, I was not thinking of levels, as rungs on a ladder. I taught them as areas that are required for full communion with the Church.

The answer to your question depends on the degree of the dissent. Not all dissent is on the same place in the hierarchy. Let’s talk about Church laws and rules.

The law is that you should not eat at least one hour before receiving Holy Communion, unless you have a health reason.

The law is that you should not miss mass on Sunday.

The two laws are not on the same level. They are in the same area. As Catholics, we must comply with Church law. Violating the fast before Communion does not separate me from the Church. Missing mass on a regular basis does do damage to my communion with the Church.

However, since I am baptized in the Catholic Church, I have the right to call myself Catholic. In the second case, I’m a Catholic who is in a very imperfect communion with the his Church. In the first case, I’m a Catholic who picks and chooses which rule to follow or who lacks self-discipline.

But anyone who is baptized as a Catholic has the right to call himself Catholic unless he leaves the Church. Even then, there is some dispute among canon lawyers about that one. Some would argue that since you cannot undo Baptism, you are still a Catholic even if proclaim yourself an atheist. You’re a very poor Catholic, but a Catholic.

Others argue that there is a point at which you sever your ties with the Catholic Church. They use this rule to describe men like Stalin, Lenin and Hitler who were baptized Orthodox or Catholic. The consensus is that when you’ve gone this far away from the faith, while Baptism cannot be undone, you have severed your communion.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
Thanks for your answer Brother.

In Argentina, some Bishops didn’t liked Mons. Laise decision to not apply the indult. For example, Mons Sueldo, then President of the Liturgy Commission, he said:

*“la norma está por encima del obispo y fue aceptada por la Conferencia Episcopal Argentina, en conformidad con la Santa Sede. De ahí en más la cuestión es del fiel, no del pastor.” *

"The norm is above the bishop and was accepted by the Episcopal Conference of Argentina, in accordance with the Holy See. From then on the issue is of the faithful, not the pastor. "

The media also painted him as a rebel.

The info is from (in Spanish):

54462237-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/secretummeummihi/Comunionenlamanoprologos1y2edici%C3%B3n.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7cp4yg8mYIGikhdzA9iKHSjoafsm4nhhAqX1teGyjnAKvrs7IEMimMcQ7FV2AU51ciP_3fTEWx1ruzSD8SpVl5Nqza54rTBPXHoEEG6WuTCGazsW9xGwAiJvjagFN2L8_RXHsVQxJRhTej-hQMMWaJIzkJSd4JXR1QHfpVhhWi7oHY6mHRgnUtq2kgpyWEkUXrBBJEA2x-ecArc4erRxheYk5vY0KKsG5aRJc-dch8-_C2P1Vr5gFpmkg81uwJXMyK-fK_e-&attredirects=0

From Memoriale Domini:

Where a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails, the Holy See—wishing to help them fulfill their task, often difficult as it is nowadays—lays on those conferences the task of weighing carefully whatever special circumstances may exist there, taking care to avoid any risk of lack of respect or of false opinions with regard to the Blessed Eucharist, and to avoid any other ill effects that may follow.”

In Colombia and Argentina, the practice was introduced. The custom was not common before the Indult. Mons. Laise attest to that (the Argentine case). Is explained in his book, and in this link (in Spanish):

www3.planalfa.es/santamariareina/laise.htm

From Colombia, we have this words said by Fr. José Vicente Echeverry, who said "aquí en Colombia hasta ahora se inicia” * (here in Colombia until now starts).

*El Tiempo, Dic-24-1991, page 5B

The Bishops Conference prepared a brochure for the introduction of the practice. *“El cuerpo de Cristo en nuestras manos” * (The body of Christ in our hands)

Blessings!

🙂
There was a statement clarifying the relationship between the individual bishops and the Conference of Bishops. I can’t remember what it’s called. In any case, the final authority in a diocese is not the conference, it’s the local bishop.

However, it was also stated by the Vatican that CITH is a decision of the Conference of Bishops.

An individual bishop can stop making use of the indult for very good reasons. To avoid conflicts with his brother bishops, he should share those reasons.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
There was a statement clarifying the relationship between the individual bishops and the Conference of Bishops. I can’t remember what it’s called. In any case, the final authority in a diocese is not the conference, it’s the local bishop.

However, it was also stated by the Vatican that CITH is a decision of the Conference of Bishops.

An individual bishop can stop making use of the indult for very good reasons. To avoid conflicts with his brother bishops, he should share those reasons.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
He did shared them, and wrote a book. But sadly, his side of the history didn’t had wide media coverage as the polemic regarding his supposed “rebellion”.

Blessings!

🙂
 
Br. JR, thanks for your reply. You mention above that most people in your community who use the EF never talk about it, and that’s okay for your community, because your community is very different from the EF groups who exist to offer the traditional sacraments to the faithful. As such, I don’t see that there’s really anything wrong with talking about it.

The EF was suppressed decades ago, so that makes it more of a topic than if it was still the norm. I don’t think that it was just change in itself that bothered people, though I wasn’t a Catholic in those days. But from what I can tell, some Catholics loved the EF and all that went with it, and not necessarily for sentimental reasons. I recall a very saintly SSPX priest (who baptized me) once saying in a sermon that after the local SSPX chapel opened in the area in the 1980’s where his family lived (he was a small boy), his family, who loved the Old Mass, attended. The people were so happy to be able to show outward devotions once again that they went over the top and showed a bit of extreme devotions, such as wearing two or three Rosaries around their necks, because they were so happy to be able to show great devotion again. These extremes, he said, eventually subsided, but it shows how hungry they were to be able to demonstrate, in an obvious manner, great devotion to Our Lord and Our Lady. So even though I’m critical of the SSPX, I am sympathetic to those who are attached to the EF, because I love it, too.

You also mention that those who feel comfortable with the OF are not ready to let go of it, but I don’t see why they would have to let go of it. It’s not in any danger of being eliminated, that I can see. Even though those who are attached to the EF can be very negative, it doesn’t mean that there’s anything intrinsically wrong with the EF. I’m trying to learn how to be more tolerant of those with extreme views, though it’s not easy. At least with the extreme trads, I know where they stand, because they say what they feel and don’t often hold back, which can be a problem, but I can respect they they are not being disingenuous.

You mention that people did not know Latin or the rubrics before 1963, but from what I’ve been told, they knew what was going on at Mass - so just bacause they didn’t speak Latin didn’t mean that they didn’t have an understanding of the Mass, and most importantly, of the sacrificial nature of the Mass.

I think that priests before 1963 did know what the set prayers meant in Latin in the Mass. Four to six years of seminary training surely prepared them for this. I would think that they did not neccesarily know enough Latin to be conversant with the changing propers, but priests today who celebrate the EF are not usualy fluent enough in Latin to know exactly what the propers mean. That’s why we have translations.

I can see why you yourself might have a problem with the EF, given the concerns you’ve shown here, and that’s okay, but even the Holy Father says that it’s fine to be attached to the EF, and he has gone to great trouble to try to ensure that the EF is more widely available.
 
It would be appreciated if Brother could help in this regard, as it is a constant theme in the SSPX to denounce all the ‘conciliar’ Popes as holding or having held heretical ideas etc. I have read countless pamphlets, newsletters etc and each one sings the same song.
As each new Pope is elected (or, in the instance of Cardinal Muller’s appointment to the CDF and Ecclesia Dei), there begins their campaign to discredit him. Why they do this is anyone’s guess - BUT - the fact that they do and the fact that it harms the laity is there to be seen,… if one does not deliberately choose to ignore the collateral damage resulting from an association with them.
40.png
Lormar:
I wonder if it will ever come about - the fundamental trust for the Church. Speaking for myself, I have yet to acquire it. The harm that I have done to myself and my way of thinking seems irreparable. I often think that perhaps it is part of my punishment for ever having doubted and that it is something I will have to live with until the day that I die.

If only there was some kind of former sede/SSPX rehabilitation site, or service, or help. But there isn’t. 😦
Lormar you have my sympathy:console:and I’m sure that of the rest of us here who understand what actually is said and done and what takes place there. Most ‘outsiders’ are looking at the problem from a secure distance, and can afford to be academic about it. I would call the emotions experienced by those disillusioned by the SSPX ‘righteous’ in so far as many lay people attend their Masses because of a deep love for the Tridentine Rite and the spiritual dynamic that satisfies their souls - not for all the polemics and propoganda that go with it.
Being an ‘escapee’ myself, the best advice I can offer you is to pray - especially to St Joseph, Patron of the Universal Church. Ask him to strengthen your will to remained united to the Church and the Pope, no matter what storms rage in your mind and soul. Which they will due to the
:confused: confusion and error planted in a Catholic soul, being fed a diet which is constantly urging it to disobey and mistrust it’s own Mother.

If it’s the Mass you love, perhaps look for a Mass Centre that is in communion with the Church in your area (which we do not have in my country at all). I’m sure they will also be able to help you, as is the design and purpose of the commission Ecclesia Dei, to ‘cross the great divide’ to peace.

Dee, thank you. I see that you understand too. As I said, only someone who has been there and tried to come home to Holy Mother Church can. You put it very well - confusion and error planted in a Catholic soul, not to mention complete distrust in the Church and doubt of all of Her Sacraments. I finally realized that having my spiritual sensibilities satisfied wasn’t worth doing in defiance of and disobedience to the Church.
 
I can see why you yourself might have a problem with the EF, given the concerns you’ve shown here, and that’s okay, but even the Holy Father says that it’s fine to be attached to the EF, and he has gone to great trouble to try to ensure that the EF is more widely available.
Whoah!!!

Slow down here. I don’t have a problem with the EF. I’m the theologian who teaches the EF at our seminary. In other words, I teach future deacons and priests how to celebrate the EF, the theology behind each part, its history, the rubrics and the five forms of the EF. I teach them the proper understanding of SP and UE and I teach them original spiritual theology necessary to pray the EF. I have 11 weeks to cram this into their heads.

I’m also the superior general who authorized the use of the EF in all of our houses.

Along with all of that, I do teach the seminarians to avoid any form of speech that would make either side of the aisle feel threatened. The liturgy should not be a threat. It should be inviting.

Actually, the language was and is an issue. Seminaries never required more than two years of Latin beyond high school. If you wanted more Latin, you took these courses as electives. For example, I studied four years. Two were required and two were electives. I’m good at languages. Two additional years of Latin were an easy “A”. 😃

Converts need to be careful with what cradle Catholics tell them about the past. People have very selective memories. I guess this is true not only of cradle Catholics, but of other groups as well. Some will tell you that there was nothing wrong in the Church or with the way mass was celebrated. Others will tell you that priests took bets on who could say mass the fastest. Some will tell you that sisters beat children to a pulp and sent them home with broken noses and others will describe sisters as holy women who taught them the faith. The truth is a little of all the above, but none of the above is completely true.

You mentioned one of the points that I cover in my course, the sacrifice. There was a mindset among lay Catholics that the sacrifice was all that mattered. This stemmed from the fact that sisters taught the catechism. Most sisters of the day did not know theology. They knew the catechism. The catechism was very brief. It was meant to be brief. It was written for a rural culture where kids spent more time in the fields than in the classroom. It gave the highlights, not the details. Theology was not and still is not required to be woman religious. It’s only required for male religious, except for those communities that have lay brothers. Religious brothers are required to study theology, lay brothers are not.

Proper theology tells us that the mass is Word, Sacrifice and Communion. This has always been the case, dating back to the Apostles. When priests strung collects from two or more masses in order to fulfill two or more obligations in one mass, they distorted the mass. It would be grossly unethical and theologically erroneous to be tolerant of this as long as you have the sacrifice. One does not alter any form of the mass, EF or OF.

You also mentioned the language. One of the requirements to celebrate either form of the mass in Latin is fluency in the language. The Church finds it unacceptable to simply be able to pronounce what’s on the printed page without knowing what it says. The Ordinary of the mass is the same in any language. Those parts are easy. The Sanctus is the Sanctus in Spanish, English, Chinese or Latin and so forth. The parts that change from day to day are not that easy. Because you can’t memorize them. You either know what the page says or you don’t know.

It is true that we have translators. It is also true that human beings can be lazy or that they can be very busy with other things that are more important at the moment. Having time to sit and study the translation of tomorrow’s mass in honor of St. Alphonse may be a luxury for some priests. I can tell you that the one priest in our community who knows how to celebrate the EF does not have time to sit down with an English/Latin missal the day before. He has community life that takes up a lot of his time. He is the maintenance man for five centers. There is always a broken pipe, an AC unit that does not work or something that needs to be painted. He is also the Director of Postulants. During the quiet time that we have during the day, the man sits in a chair a falls asleep. As his superior, I must make sure that when he celebrates mass in Latin, either form, he knows what he’s reading. He can’t just decode.

I’ve seen people do that when they celebrate mass in another language. I attended a mass that was supposed to be in Spanish. The priest did not speak Spanish. He read from the missal. It was horrible for anyone who was fluent in Spanish. He lacked the cadence. He mispronounced some letters, and it was very mechanical. We cannot treat the mass this way. I was a guest there. For all I know the regular Spanish-speaking priest may have suddenly gotten sick. I sincerely hope that this was not the usual bread and butter. I have seen this happen with Latin as well.

I had a seminarian who passed his required Latin courses, be he couldn’t interpret Latin. He could do literal translations and very slowly too. I have no idea if that boy ever intended to celebrate a mass in Latin. My hope was that he would go back for more Latin or stay away from mass in Latin altogether. I used to think to myself that he was the only person whom I knew that could kill a dead language. I was not there to teach him Latin. I was there to teach him theology. I could only suggest a more Latin courses, which is what I did.

There are many complications that superiors, bishops, seminary staff and religious formation directors face that the outside world never hears about. I wish that we had more priests, deacons and brothers on these fora. They can share their experiences. When I came, we did have many. Unfortunately, people were so mean and disrespectful, that they decided that this was not worth their time and slowly left.

I think Brother David and I are the only ones around. Now, with the changes taking place in our respective communities, you will be seeing less of Brother and me. Once the summer lull is passed, we will have more things on our plate.

I love this ministry. When I was diagnosed with Leukemia and told to stay in bed, I chose this ministry, because I could do it from bed. I never expected to get stronger or to be appointed superior general. My expectation was to write, do online ministry and wait until it was time to go home. God always has other plans.

In any case, I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE EF. I find the way that people on both sides of the aisle speak about the mass. They need to pick the form and parish that nurtures their spiritual lives and stop worrying about what others are doing or not doing. I say this to the mainstream and to the Trads.

We are to help others get to heaven, not intimidate them into heaven or nag them into heaven.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
I think that there is a danger of distorting somewhat what the SSPX really stands for by quoting a few things out of context.
 
This is a lovely thread. Probably the only SSPX thread that I have not had to close after post # 3.

I hate to do this to you ladies and gents, but can you get back to discussing something remotely related to the SSPX?

I can’t even break this thread into two. There are too many shifts in subjects. I am proud of you for keeping your cool and knowing when to back down, ask questions and observing the rules. I’m also impressed by the many posters on this thread who are very good communicators. You’ve said what you think without ruffling too many feathers.

How about giving yourselves a hand of applause. :clapping:

A+
 
“A lovely thread”…what a wonderful thing to say! Thanks Thomas!
 
Whoah!!!

Slow down here. I don’t have a problem with the EF. I’m the theologian who teaches the EF at our seminary. In other words, I teach future deacons and priests how to celebrate the EF, the theology behind each part, its history, the rubrics and the five forms of the EF. I teach them the proper understanding of SP and UE and I teach them original spiritual theology necessary to pray the EF. I have 11 weeks to cram this into their heads.

I’m also the superior general who authorized the use of the EF in all of our houses.

Along with all of that, I do teach the seminarians to avoid any form of speech that would make either side of the aisle feel threatened. The liturgy should not be a threat. It should be inviting.

Actually, the language was and is an issue. Seminaries never required more than two years of Latin beyond high school. If you wanted more Latin, you took these courses as electives. For example, I studied four years. Two were required and two were electives. I’m good at languages. Two additional years of Latin were an easy “A”. 😃

Converts need to be careful with what cradle Catholics tell them about the past. People have very selective memories. I guess this is true not only of cradle Catholics, but of other groups as well. Some will tell you that there was nothing wrong in the Church or with the way mass was celebrated. Others will tell you that priests took bets on who could say mass the fastest. Some will tell you that sisters beat children to a pulp and sent them home with broken noses and others will describe sisters as holy women who taught them the faith. The truth is a little of all the above, but none of the above is completely true.

You mentioned one of the points that I cover in my course, the sacrifice. There was a mindset among lay Catholics that the sacrifice was all that mattered. This stemmed from the fact that sisters taught the catechism. Most sisters of the day did not know theology. They knew the catechism. The catechism was very brief. It was meant to be brief. It was written for a rural culture where kids spent more time in the fields than in the classroom. It gave the highlights, not the details. Theology was not and still is not required to be woman religious. It’s only required for male religious, except for those communities that have lay brothers. Religious brothers are required to study theology, lay brothers are not.

Proper theology tells us that the mass is Word, Sacrifice and Communion. This has always been the case, dating back to the Apostles. When priests strung collects from two or more masses in order to fulfill two or more obligations in one mass, they distorted the mass. It would be grossly unethical and theologically erroneous to be tolerant of this as long as you have the sacrifice. One does not alter any form of the mass, EF or OF.

You also mentioned the language. One of the requirements to celebrate either form of the mass in Latin is fluency in the language. The Church finds it unacceptable to simply be able to pronounce what’s on the printed page without knowing what it says. The Ordinary of the mass is the same in any language. Those parts are easy. The Sanctus is the Sanctus in Spanish, English, Chinese or Latin and so forth. The parts that change from day to day are not that easy. Because you can’t memorize them. You either know what the page says or you don’t know.

It is true that we have translators. It is also true that human beings can be lazy or that they can be very busy with other things that are more important at the moment. Having time to sit and study the translation of tomorrow’s mass in honor of St. Alphonse may be a luxury for some priests. I can tell you that the one priest in our community who knows how to celebrate the EF does not have time to sit down with an English/Latin missal the day before. He has community life that takes up a lot of his time. He is the maintenance man for five centers. There is always a broken pipe, an AC unit that does not work or something that needs to be painted. He is also the Director of Postulants. During the quiet time that we have during the day, the man sits in a chair a falls asleep. As his superior, I must make sure that when he celebrates mass in Latin, either form, he knows what he’s reading. He can’t just decode.

I’ve seen people do that when they celebrate mass in another language. I attended a mass that was supposed to be in Spanish. The priest did not speak Spanish. He read from the missal. It was horrible for anyone who was fluent in Spanish. He lacked the cadence. He mispronounced some letters, and it was very mechanical. We cannot treat the mass this way. I was a guest there. For all I know the regular Spanish-speaking priest may have suddenly gotten sick. I sincerely hope that this was not the usual bread and butter. I have seen this happen with Latin as well.

I had a seminarian who passed his required Latin courses, be he couldn’t interpret Latin. He could do literal translations and very slowly too. I have no idea if that boy ever intended to celebrate a mass in Latin. My hope was that he would go back for more Latin or stay away from mass in Latin altogether. I used to think to myself that he was the only person whom I knew that could kill a dead language. I was not there to teach him Latin. I was there to teach him theology. I could only suggest a more Latin courses, which is what I did.

There are many complications that superiors, bishops, seminary staff and religious formation directors face that the outside world never hears about. I wish that we had more priests, deacons and brothers on these fora. They can share their experiences. When I came, we did have many. Unfortunately, people were so mean and disrespectful, that they decided that this was not worth their time and slowly left.

I think Brother David and I are the only ones around. Now, with the changes taking place in our respective communities, you will be seeing less of Brother and me. Once the summer lull is passed, we will have more things on our plate.

I love this ministry. When I was diagnosed with Leukemia and told to stay in bed, I chose this ministry, because I could do it from bed. I never expected to get stronger or to be appointed superior general. My expectation was to write, do online ministry and wait until it was time to go home. God always has other plans.

In any case, I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE EF. I find the way that people on both sides of the aisle speak about the mass. They need to pick the form and parish that nurtures their spiritual lives and stop worrying about what others are doing or not doing. I say this to the mainstream and to the Trads.

We are to help others get to heaven, not intimidate them into heaven or nag them into heaven.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
Interesting. What seminary is that, Br JR? Just curious.
 
This is a lovely thread. Probably the only SSPX thread that I have not had to close after post # 3.

I hate to do this to you ladies and gents, but can you get back to discussing something remotely related to the SSPX?

I can’t even break this thread into two. There are too many shifts in subjects. I am proud of you for keeping your cool and knowing when to back down, ask questions and observing the rules. I’m also impressed by the many posters on this thread who are very good communicators. You’ve said what you think without ruffling too many feathers.

How about giving yourselves a hand of applause. :clapping:

A+
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
I think that there is a danger of distorting somewhat what the SSPX really stands for by quoting a few things out of context.
What ‘things’ were quoted out of context:confused:

Trying to put what they stand for into perspective is what is actually the difficulty;).

Take a look at this recent interview with Bishop Fellay where he admits that the SSPX are seeing the Council Document on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae) with a different understanding to that which was previously held.
youtube.com/watch?v=DdnJigNzTuY
He is of course being criticized severely by Bishop Williamson as being a traitor to the cause etc.:slapfight:

It is also curious that Archbishop Lefebvre was quoted in their own & Traditional periodicals as claiming to have ‘refused to sign’ this document, yet proof exists that he in fact did do so:confused::confused:

“In light of the fact that for over 20 years the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre constantly denounced the Vatican II Declaration on Religious Liberty, *Dignitatis Humanae, *as irreconcilable with orthodox Catholic doctrine, it is curious, to say the least, to discover that he himself, along with Pope Paul VI and most of the other fathers of Vatican II, was actually one of the signatories to the document. It has been demonstrated from the original Vatican II archives that his name (as well as that of fellow-traditionalist Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer of Campos, Brazil) appears on the list of signatures to this and the other three documents promulgated on the final day of Vatican Council II, December 7, 1965.”

culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/Fidelity_archives/SSPX8.htm

“In itself, of course, the question is scarcely of earth-shaking importance. Nevertheless, an article in English on these signatures is worthwhile publishing for several reasons. First, just to set the record straight on a point of history. Secondly, because Marcel Lefebvre – whatever one thinks of him – has been a figure of considerable importance in post Conciliar Catholicism, and details like this will help to build up a more accurate overall picture of his character for future historians and biographers…Finally, because the controversy which exploded when the signatures were discovered shows us something about prevailing attitudes within the SSPX and its supporters.”
 
Interesting. What seminary is that, Br JR? Just curious.
Our own. Religious don’t usually send their theology students to diocesan seminaries. It confuses the students. It’s better to keep them apart. Because diocesan seminaries are controlled by the bishops. The program of studies and the environment is tailored to meet the needs of the dioceses. We want our men to fit into their religious communities.

Once upon a time I taught at the WTC, when I was in Washington. It’s a theologate for religious. Now it’s closing. I then went to teach for the Archdiocese of Guayaquil. Now I teach our own. I no longer have the health to carry a full load of classes at a big school. I doubt that I’ll be around to see the incoming students graduate.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
I would like to know the name of that book.
The book is called THE MASS A Study of the Roman Liturgy by Adrian Fortescue
It was an invention of the left that Communion was received in the hand for the first 400 years. The idea that communion in the hand was the norm, then slowly in the 9th or 10th century the practice of receiving in the mouth was gradually introduced is not true. Pope Saint Sixtus I (115-125 AD) said; "It is prohibited for the faithful to even touch the sacred vessels, or receive in the hand.”
I mentioned this subject earlier on this thread because it is a very big issue amongst the SSPX and other ‘Traditionalists’ who make the claim that it was an invention of the ‘Modernists’’.

This does not appear to be the case, according to what is written by Fortescue (his book being widely consulted by said Traditionalists for reference to practices in the Liturgy etc.) See below quotes from this work in regard to Communion in the hand.

"4. The Communion Act
…There are many witnesses that the Host was put in the hand of the Communicant.(1)
Women had to cover their hand with a white cloth.(2)
It seems that as early as the time of St Gregory I (590-604) it was sometimes put into the mouth, as now.(3)
For some time both ways must have gone on side by side. St Bede (d.735) mentions reception in the hand, (4)
the VIth Roman Ordo (IXth cent.) describes our way.(5)
Card. Bona thinks that the use of very thin altar bread had to do with the beginning of our manner of administration.(6)

(1)Tertullian de Idolol. 7 (P.L.i,669); St. Cyprian: de lapsis, 26 (P.L.IV,486); St. Augustine: Ctra ep. Parmen. ii,7,13 (P.L. xliii,58)

(2) Aug. Appendix, Sermo ccxxix,5 (P.L. xxxix,2168): the sermon is probably by St. Maaximus of Turin (V cent.). Council of Auxerre in 585 or 578, can. 36 (Hefele-Leclercq: Hist. de Conciles, iii, 220); can. 42 (ib.) call thi cloth the dominicale. See Corblet: *Hist…du Sacrement de l’Eucharistie *(Paris, 1885), ii, pp. 183-185.

(3) S. Greg: Dialog. iii, 3 (P.L. lxxvii,224).

(4) Hist. eccl. gentis angl. iv, 24 (P.L. xcv, 214).

(5) P.L. lxxviii, 994
.
(6) Rev.lit. ii,17, 7.

(From the Preface by A.F. “I have constantly used and quoted Cardinal Bona. He supplies very well what I would say. .”
For the Latin Rite communion on the tongue was always the norm.
If you mean by this the Roman Rite, then here is what A.Fortescue says…

THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN RITE
1. State of the Question
“When we turn to our own Roman Rite we come to what is perhaps the most difficult question in the whole field of liturgical study, namely how it arose. The Roman Mass has (especially in the Canon)certain peculiarities that separate it from all Eastern Liturgies, indeed we may say from the Gallican rite too, and so from every other use in
Christendom.
The problem then is when and why these peculiarities (differences) of the Roman Mass arose. We find them already in the first complete text we have, that of the Gelasian Sacramentary.(3)”

(3)Its date is doubtful, see below, pp.119-121). Provisionally we may place it at about the VII th century)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top