SSPX communique to Rome

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mark1970
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s also good to see some convergence (but for style) across the Liturgies of various ritual Churches in the same vernacular.
In that sense, yes. But in defense of the ICEL, at least all means all in most languages. Whereas “many” can mean something different for everyone. We don’t have a good word for “not all” in English.

Just out of curiosity I did a search on the etymology of “many.”
many (n.)
O.E. menigu, from many (adj.). The many “the multitude” attested from 1520s. Cf. also Goth. managei “multitude, crowd,” O.H.G. managi “large number, plurality,” Ger. Menge “multitude.”
So that begs the question of why “many” was originally selected instead of “multitude” which seems to be more cognative of the Latin “multis.” “Pluribus” also translates into “many” (such as “e pluribus unum”) and the meaning there seems to be different because there “many” easily could mean “all” (coins). But I suppose that could be a debate for the next translation. 🙂
 
I agree that these things aren’t as common as traditionalists think, but when a blog, such as the one that you posted a link to, encourages Catholics to write about their worst experiences with the OF Mass, of what good purpose does this serve? I occasionally attend an OF when travelling, and have never seen a clown Mass, or one with balloons, or ceili dancers, or rock and roll. Yes, they have happened, but I think that for the most part, the OF is celebrated properly and according to the rubrics. Given how many Catholic churches there are in the world, this is an amazement in itself.
The traditionalists point of view is that what occurs commonly in most Churches is not good either. A mass with unvested, lay, female lectors, EMHCs, CITH, vernacular, the altar table and childish hymns only seem proper because we’ve got used to them.

“Clown Mass, or one with balloons, or ceili dancers, or rock and roll” look insane in 2012, but look what’s been normalised in 40 years. We, as a Church, simply don’t know how to behave in the presence of holiness any more. Or we don’t care. It’s not on the agenda 🤷

We’ve swopped it for the Community thing, I think.
 
So that begs the question of why “many” was originally selected instead of “multitude” which seems to be more cognative of the Latin “multis.”
Well, I think that’s where the theology kicks in.

Did the Perfect Sacrifice ensure that all would be saved? (all vs. multitude)

Even if significant numbers become baptized, practicing Catholics, is our salvation guaranteed? (multitude vs. many)

Had Jesus not established the Church, despite the Perfect Sacrifice, how many would have been saved? (many vs. few)

Please pardon my poor attempt at layman theology above.
 
I agree. I am all in favor of reasonable discussions in a proper forum. However, I am opposed to violent disruptions of the ceremonies of others. Some things are controversial and I don;t see Catholics agreeing on everything. For example, in the following Catholic Mass, everyone seems to be having such a good time, but my guess is that there would be Catholics who would not want to join the party:
youtube.com/watch?v=rh_nqtp3VrU
It seems, from the deaconess’s (?) and celebrant’s words, that they intend to bring the party to the rest of us: “Go out and create the Church you have dreamed of.” Beware! Big Puppet is watching you!

More seriously, I can understand the thinking behind a Mass like this. If one envisages the NOM as the skeletal framework of a liturgical play in which everyone is part of the cast, then the only limit is the creativity of the choreographer. Sort of like those pantomimes I went to as a kid, where the main characters spent time talking to the audience and drawing them in. A lot of fun.
 
Well, really the tradition approach would be to expect the laity to “pray, pay, and obey.” 😉

At issue though is how a group of priests should relate to the Vatican. The laity doesn’t belong to the SSPX, despite their contributions over the years.
Their third order members and their oblates who have made committments to the SSPX would likely differ in that analysis; not to mention their lay brothers and their sisters. I imagine they feel their own future is quite closely tied with the future direction of the society.

Peace,
 
The traditionalists point of view is that what occurs commonly in most Churches is not good either. A mass with unvested, lay, female lectors, EMHCs, CITH, vernacular, the altar table and childish hymns only seem proper because we’ve got used to them.

“Clown Mass, or one with balloons, or ceili dancers, or rock and roll” look insane in 2012, but look what’s been normalised in 40 years. We, as a Church, simply don’t know how to behave in the presence of holiness any more. Or we don’t care. It’s not on the agenda 🤷

We’ve swopped it for the Community thing, I think.
And yet holiness can exist in the most unlikely of places, and it may not always be obvious.
 
And yet holiness can exist in the most unlikely of places, and it may not always be obvious.
The idea of a church and a mass is to make it obvious. Otherwise, you just have a bunch of people in a room.
 
Thanks. So if I understand it, the Spanish Mass I presently attend says or implies in effect “the sins of all WILL BE forgiven” as opposed to the old ICEL’s “the sins of all MAY BE forgiven?” :eek:

I wonder if anyone outside the traditional circles in the 60’s noticed that?
Hi Pro, you are mixing two different parts, the Spanish wording is:

…Sangre de la alianza nueva y eterna,
que será derramada por vosotros y por todos los hombres or por muchos
para el perdón de los pecados
.

Literal translation:

…the Blood of the new and eternal covenant;
which will be poured out for you and for all men or** for many**
** for the forgiveness of sins.
**

I have never heard the form the sins may be or will be forgiven in a Mass in Spanish
 
The idea of a church and a mass is to make it obvious. Otherwise, you just have a bunch of people in a room.
“I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.”

By definition the obvious is only the start of faith.
I love Benedict Groeschel’s paraphrase of Augustine:
“If you find the God you think you understand, you’ve probably built yourself an idol.”
 
Hi Pro, you are mixing two different parts, the Spanish wording is:

…Sangre de la alianza nueva y eterna,
que será derramada por vosotros y por todos los hombres or por muchos
para el perdón de los pecados
.

Literal translation:

…the Blood of the new and eternal covenant;
which will be poured out for you and for all men or** for many**
** for the forgiveness of sins.
**

I have never heard the form the sins may be or will be forgiven in a Mass in Spanish
That’s what I feared.

“So that sins may be forgiven” seems like a creative way of getting around “for the forgiveness of sins” but apparently this wasn’t picked up in the Spanish translation from English.
Well, I think that’s where the theology kicks in.
:sad_yes:
 
That’s what I feared.

“So that sins may be forgiven” seems like a creative way of getting around “for the forgiveness of sins” but apparently this wasn’t picked up in the Spanish translation from English.

:sad_yes:
I’m a little confused… how is ‘So that sins may be forgiven’ trying to “get around” the phrase ‘for the forgiveness of sins’???

Ultimately they mean the exact same thing. 🤷
 
I’m a little confused… how is ‘So that sins may be forgiven’ trying to “get around” the phrase ‘for the forgiveness of sins’???

Ultimately they mean the exact same thing. 🤷
The former statement is conditional and implies some level of uncertainty. Thus, it can be construed to mean something other than what we truly believe: that is, Christ died and rose so for the forgiveness of sin and so that we might share in life everlasting. There is no doubt that sins can be and are forgiven as a result. The only question that remains is if we are or will become worthy sharers in eternal life.
 
The former statement is conditional and implies some level of uncertainty. Thus, it can be construed to mean something other than what we truly believe: that is, Christ died and rose so for the forgiveness of sin and so that we might share in life everlasting. There is no doubt that sins can be and are forgiven as a result. The only question that remains is if we are or will become worthy sharers in eternal life.
Maybe I should have been clearer. I recognize, as I stated earlier, that the first sentance can be misunderstood, which is why I think the newer translation is better. However, just because it can be misunderstood does not mean that it is a " a creative way of getting around" the Church’s understanding. I’m gonna be perfectly honest here, I grew up with the older translation, never once did I mistakenly assume it to be saying that sins were only possibly forgiven, I always understood it to be saying that Because of Christs death and resurrection it is now possible for sins to be forgiven. And this was without anyone specifically sitting me down and telling me that thats what it meant. It was just clear and obvious that thats what it meant. Now, it is possible that there are people who were misled by this language, which is, again, why I think it is good that it has been changed, however, the claim that it is some creative attempt to get away from the Church’s own understanding on the matter seems to show an unbelievable lack of charity towards those who made the changes. Why assume that they purposefully intended the wording to mislead others? It** does** actually say what it is supposed to say, it just also, unfortunately, can be mistaken to mean something else. So why assume bad intentions on the part of those who translated it?
 
I recognize, as I stated earlier, that the first sentance can be misunderstood, which is why I think the newer translation is better. However, just because it can be misunderstood does not mean that it is a " a creative way of getting around" the Church’s understanding.
Easterners believe that the Liturgy is catechesis, truly a view shared in the Catholic Church. We thus believe that the language used in the liturgy, when not from Scripture directly, must be as faithful to our understanding of Scripture as possible. With every effort at translation, there is always a fresh view of the integrity of the extant translation in current usage and societal context.

Translations are always the subject of some controversy. My church experienced such back in 2006/2007 (I’ll spare you the details).

That you properly understood the theology even with the old language is admirable, and probably a result of good catechesis and your own diligence in faith. As I watch my children grow in this era, I realize that they have become quite literal in terms of how they interpret the world. They have no choice. Further, I doubt they will be schooled in Latin or Greek, so they will have to understand their Church in their own tongue. For this reason, we might be accepting of changes in translation that are faithful.

I will say that I still cannot get used to the “roof” edit … 😃
 
Easterners believe that the Liturgy is catechesis, truly a view shared in the Catholic Church. We thus believe that the language used in the liturgy, when not from Scripture directly, must be as faithful to our understanding of Scripture as possible. With every effort at translation, there is always a fresh view of the integrity of the extant translation in current usage and societal context.

Translations are always the subject of some controversy. My church experienced such back in 2006/2007 (I’ll spare you the details).

That you properly understood the theology even with the old language is admirable, and probably a result of good catechesis and your own diligence in faith. As I watch my children grow in this era, I realize that they have become quite literal in terms of how they interpret the world. They have no choice. Further, I doubt they will be schooled in Latin or Greek, so they will have to understand their Church in their own tongue. For this reason, we might be accepting of changes in translation that are faithful.
Oh, yes, I believe the way it is phrased is very important, like I said, I am glad it was changed. We are in agreement here. 🙂
I will say that I still cannot get used to the “roof” edit … 😃
Yeah… I’ve got to say that particular phrase still seems a little clunky to me too, I guess I just need to give it more time to grow on me. 🙂
 
So that begs the question of why “many” was originally selected instead of “multitude” which seems to be more cognative of the Latin “multis.” “Pluribus” also translates into “many” (such as “e pluribus unum”) and the meaning there seems to be different because there “many” easily could mean “all” (coins). But I suppose that could be a debate for the next translation. 🙂
Begets. It begets the question.

I’m sorry, my philosophy professor hammered that into us.
The traditionalists point of view is that what occurs commonly in most Churches is not good either. A mass with unvested, lay, female lectors, EMHCs, CITH, vernacular, the altar table and childish hymns only seem proper because we’ve got used to them.
Number 1, none of those things you listed are abuses. Not at all.

Secondly, it’s just called an ALTAR, not an “altar table” (what does that even mean? There’s no reason to add “table” except to demean). It deserves respect and veneration, not childish insults.
 
“Begs the question:” doesn’t answer the question why many was used.

“Begets the question:” leads to the question why many was used.

From the context it seems pro-vobis meant “doesn’t answer the question why many was used.”

So “begs” not “begets.”
 
Since we don’ t know what the SSPX is going to respond, we can’t speak for them. All we have is a letter with fragments of what they spoke about. If I may, I would like to share some thoughts and maybe shed some like on details.

The first is that the two new Archbishops are politely, but firmly saying that there is nothing in Vatican II Documents that can be negotiated. They must be accepted in their totality and it’s not up for discussion. They are not willing to discuss it, especially with the SSPX. This message is loud and clear.

They are willing to discuss it with legitimate and authorized theologians. But the SSPX are not legitimate theologians. They have no canonical status. This is what Archbishop DiNoia keeps pointing to. If they accept what is being offered to the, they will have canonical status. In that case, they can also ask for license to write and teach theology. With that license, they can then engage in dialogue with the various theologians around the world and at the Holy See on different points of concern to them.

There is another point. Many people point to what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote once upon a time about the Paul Mass. However, two years ago, when asked about those statements, he retracted them. He admitted that they were poorly stated and that his statements had not conveyed the truth about the Ordinary Form, which he now sees as pope. He made a very special point to mention that as pope things look very different. You often end up retracting positions. People don’t seem to want to let those positions go, even though he does.

As for the Ordinary Form of the Mass, it is precisely the theology of the Ordinary Form, not the validity, that the Vatican is saying that the SSPX must agree not to criticize or debate. Again, my believe is that if they were legitimate theologians, they would get some slack on this. But they are not. You have to be in the Church to be authorized to be a theologian. Having a degree does not make you a theologian. I’ll give one example, Archbishop Fulton Sheen was never a theologian. He had a doctorate degree, but he never had a license. He was a motivational speaker, as far as the Church was concerned.

Neither of these men are willing to budge on these two points and both are separately saying that this was the pope’s idea at the last minute. Pope Benedict will not budge. He will give them anything, but those two points. They can have seminaries, a prelature, a prelate, houses, faithful, an apostolate and even participation in diocesan life, if they want it. They can celebrate the EF to their hearts’ content. But they must agree that there is no error in the documents of Vatican II and that there is no weakness in the theology of the Pauline Mass, because the pope cannot make that kind of error.

They are being invited to take the Dominican position. There is X and there is Y. You prefer X and I prefer Y. I promise that I will never say a word about X. I promise that I will accept that X is valid and that there is no error in it. However, I will go with Y, because it is my preference and I feel that it is as valid as X. This position has kept the Dominicans in the popes’ good graces for about 400 years, since the foundation of the Jesuits and they took on the SJs. The pope told both to back down or he would snap them back faster than a rubber band. Each side holds opposing definitions of grace to this day. The popes say that there is no problem as long as neither is contrary to revealed dogma.

The thing about the laity and the SSPX has to be understood or there are going to be some hard feelings. No religious order, no religious congregation, nor society of secular life, and no secular order is allowed to tell the laity what it’s doing, why it’s doing it or when it’s doing it. This comes from the Council of Trent. The laity and the bishops are not to be informed of anything. To ensure that neither laity nor bishops are informed, the chapter is to be attended by delegates, not the entire community. The delegates must make an oath of secrecy under penalty of excommunication. They may not speak about what was said even to the members of their community.

They can only reveal to the members of their community the conclusions. These are revealed in forms of statutes, if they are laws or in forms of action plans, if they are concerning the future. How they go there, who said what and why, cannot be shared even with the members of the community. We who are not delegates to the chapter are never told why we’re suddenly going West instead of South. We’re simply told to change direction, shut up and do it now. The bishops are not told. They are simply told that the community is doing this or that. If they don’t like it, they can complain to the pope. The laity is not to be told anything at all. The laity may be shown the constitutions and new statutes if there are any. Pastoral plans are to be shared with the laity on a need to know basis, but the need to know to which the Church refers to is to individuals, not the entire lay community.

These laws are still enforced today by the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, which is what the SSPX are. If the SSPX wants to re-enter the mainstream, it has to begin to comply with the Church’s laws on these matters. The SSPX has made it a very bad habit of telling the laity everything and of involving the laity in all of its affairs, including its problems. Now, they will have to learn to hold back, if they are going to be a prelature and the Society itself is going to be a fully recognized community separate from religious and laity. In that case, whatever they do or say, is not to be shared with bishops, religious, laity or members of other institutes of apostolic life.

This is a practice that goes back for 500 years. Unfortunately, in the effort to include the laity and make the laity more active in the Church, many priests, brothers and sisters broke with this practice. The law was never abrogated. The silence was to be maintained. But the enthusiasm of engaging the laity overcame common sense. The laity was brought into many things that they were not supposed to be part of. Things that they should have controlled, were never given to them, for example: soup kitchens, homeless shelters, pro-life ministries, education, healthcare, etc. However, they were on parish councils as equals to the clergy and religious. They were associates, tertiaries and oblates as equals to the Benedictines, Dominicans, Carmelites, Franciscans and Trinitarians. In fact, the new third orders and the new oblates that came after Vatican II are not in the same canonical status as the older ones. The older ones are actually real orders with a voice and vote in Rome, not just in their society or congregation. For example, the superior general of the Secular Franciscans sat right with the other male Superiors General as an equal at Vatican II and worked on Pefectae Caritatis with other religious men.

This is the custom that the SSPX is trying to follow and we have to be patient with them. They are trying to get it right. They wouldn’t be very good traditionalists, if they sent out memos to their lay friends.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV 🙂
 
Begets. It begets the question.

I’m sorry, my philosophy professor hammered that into us.
Let me guess. He translated the Nicene Creed as well. 🙂
“Begs the question:” doesn’t answer the question why many was used.

“Begets the question:” leads to the question why many was used.

From the context it seems pro-vobis meant “doesn’t answer the question why many was used.”

So “begs” not “begets.”
I didn’t give it that much thought but thanks. 👍
 
So would it be fair to say Bro JR that the SSPX is looking fairly amateurish?

How come they got so much traction? Is it because they tapped into a rich vein of discontent and then milked it for all it was worth?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top