SSPX communique to Rome

[JReducation]

Interesting. That does put Bishop Williamson in context. Playing someone’s advocate , I would counter that the SSPX invokes the principle extraordinary jurisdiction for the management of its own affairs,

There is no such thing in Canon Law. Supplied jurisdiction applies to the administration of two sacraments: Penance and Anointing of the Sick in cases of life and death where an ordinary priest cannot be found or there is no time to find one.

Government of an institute is always ordinary. It is regulated by three, sometimes four parts:

1. The mind of the founder
2. A rule of life (optional)
3. Constitutions (Proper Law)
4. Canon Law

Supplied jurisdiction would mean that one can govern without these. There is no allowance for such in public institutes. Even private associations must be governed according to Canon Law and Proper Law, to be given permission to call themselves Catholic.

Bishop Williamson could counter that the dangers Bishop Fellay is about to subject the SSPX to in a deal with Rome nullifies his recourse to supplied jurisdiction by the Church, and hence he loses the authority to act in the capacity of Superior General and hence Bishop Williamson no longer has the obligation of submitting to him.

The question is whether or not Bishop Fellay has jurisdiction over the SSPX. I don’t know. I’m not a Canon Lawyer. My guess is that it would function like a private association where they agree on their own government and make some kind of promise to comply with it.

Personally I don’t think they intend to redefine anything.

I don’t mean the SSPX. I mean the Vatican. The Holy Father created the concept of prelatures to accommodate Opus Dei.

The same happened in the past. The concept of religious congregation was created to accommodate the Vincentians and the Daughters of Charity. There were only religious orders The Church has to create the concept of congregations and laws for them to incorporate the religious congregations into the infrastructure of religious life. The Church can certainly create new canons to accommodate for the SSPX.

At present the SSPX acts, or attempts to act, like a normal priestly Fraternity because that is what it was originally set up to be.

Actually, it does not act like a normal priestly fraternity. A normal priestly fraternity would be Maryknoll, Missionhurst, FSSP, ICRSS, and Oratorians. They do priestly ministry in a specific field of the apostolate, are self-governing, fund themselves, form their own men, and answer to the Holy Father.

They do not have lay followers, nor third orders, nor oblates, nor religious attached to them, nor do they own and operate their own parishes and chapels. They run those owned by the diocese. The laity can make use of their services, but are not allowed to refer to themselves as Orations, etc. They do not have religious attached to them. Even the Maryknoll. There is a community of Maryknoll Sisters, but they are not part of Maryknoll. They are Dominicans. They partner with the Maryknoll in the apostolate, but they do not share the spirituality of Maryknoll. They follow the spirituality of the Dominican Third Order and the statutes of the Dominican Third Order.

Once its status in the Church is regularised then everything will slip back into its original place.

But what was the original place. No one seems to know. If there were such a place, the Holy Father would not be offering them a prelature.

Hello. I have never posted before on this forum, actually this thread has been the first one I have read here. On Trad forums, this site is spoken of less than favorably and so I have kept away.

I am overwhelmed by the charity with which the good Franciscan Brother is speaking about the entire situation regarding the SSPX. I have learned so very much, and many of my previously held assertions are certainly being disturbed. But obviously, this is the work of the Holy Ghost.

Thank you, Brother, for taking the time to educate on an internet forum. I feel like my eyes have been opened, and I have 9 people to direct spiritually in my home.

Please continue to post as you have time. God Bless You.

G.Maria

You’re very welcome. Thank you so much for your kind words.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Dee_S]

… From a logical standpoint, if a confessor with proper jurisdiction exists, how does one argue that an emergency exists? A Catholic would not have to like a priest, liturgy, politics, theology, etc. to receive absolution, so where is the danger? Unless one goes so far as to deny the validity of the Catholic sacrament, which would truly be a schismatic mindset, then there is clearly no emergency…It is far better to accept the Church’s position that these priests have no canonical ministry within the Church.

It does appear that it was not their Sacramental needs that motivated them, but in excuse having been ‘on the inside’ myself, the very real fear existed and was propogated and discussed *ad nauseam *that the Sacraments of the Church since Vatican II were, at best suspect, and probably invalid.

Some examples being questioning the validity of the New Mass, as it could not be certain that the Modernist priest had the right intention when he consecrated (so much ‘theological’ debate on this one) and that the Tridentine Mass was supplying the graces to the world that were being ‘lost’ as a result of these ‘invalid’ consecrations. The amount of literature generated by the SSPX on this one was staggering.

‘Conditional’ confirmations are the order of the day, all NOrdo confirmations being suspect (due to the incorrect chrism oil possibly having been used in the Modern Church) and to be on the ‘safe side’ anyone attending their Masses was encouraged to be Confirmed again, along with new candidates for the sacrament. This keeps their bishops busy travelling the globe.

Sadly, IMO the ‘state of emergency’ was very much in the mind, the real danger being the wanton licence with which ‘The Crisis’ was so much exaggerated that a Traditionalist was in fear of stepping a toe into a ‘Conciliar church’, in case they ‘lost their Faith’.

Justin Swanton “The SSPX argues that the situation in parishes after the Council was such that many Catholics were seriously troubled in their Faith and looked elsewhere for their spiritual needs to be met.”
That they looked ‘elsewhere’ is well known, but often in the very direction they claimed to be escaping from! It was well known that parishioners and priests of the SSPX alike went to confession with priests of the so-called Novus Ordo whenever it suited their purposes. (This was the one Sacrament that they did not doubt as being ‘valid’ as the priest’s intention could not affect it, but it was strongly cautioned against for the reason that the Modernists had lost the true sense of sin and their present laxity and ill-advice would possibly endanger your spiritual growth)

Justin Swanton: “Once its status in the Church is regularised then everything will slip back into its original place”.
No-man’s land?

Br JR “But what was the original place. No one seems to know. If there were such a place, the Holy Father would not be offering them a prelature.”
:thumbsup:Hear, hear.

 

[Dee_S]

Hello. I have never posted before on this forum, actually this thread has been the first one I have read here. On Trad forums, this site is spoken of less than favorably and so I have kept away.

I am overwhelmed by the charity with which the good Franciscan Brother is speaking about the entire situation regarding the SSPX. I have learned so very much, and many of my previously held assertions are certainly being disturbed. But obviously, this is the work of the Holy Ghost.

Thank you, Brother, for taking the time to educate on an internet forum. I feel like my eyes have been opened, and I have 9 people to direct spiritually in my home.

Please continue to post as you have time. God Bless You.

G.Maria

Such kind and thoughtful words, and yes, the Holy Ghost is at work directing all of us, if we but let Him. and yes, Br JR enlightens us with both his charity and his knowledge.

Believe it or not, it is very difficult for me sometimes, to say some of the things I do here on this thread, but I do it from a sense of Justice (not at all perfect I’m sure) as having been, once upon a time, a Trad - it was a painful journey to cross what my priest called “the great divide” - back into safe harbor. - I pity their cares and worries, having been once my own, which are so often just illusory. And as most of us will agree, the deep need to be one with the Church can never truly be erased from our hearts.

 

[pnewton]

It does appear that it was not their Sacramental needs that motivated them, but in excuse having been ‘on the inside’ myself, the very real fear existed and was propogated and discussed *ad nauseam *that the Sacraments of the Church since Vatican II were, at best suspect, and probably invalid.

I think part of the problem is different elements/factions saying different things. This is why I do not like to think that anyone is being hypocritical, rather that there is a logical inconsistency between two opinions expressed from within the SSPX. Namely, they claim official not to be in schism and accept the validity of the Catholic Sacraments. This is the position from which the Church is currently negotiating with them. Yet we have some that, as you point out, throw doubt on the validity of the Catholic Church’s Sacraments. This is a very serious division. Yet without it, there is simply no claim to an emergency and their confession remains, even in their eyes, invalid.

The SSPX can not have it both ways, that is both a state of emergency that justifies their confessions and acceptance of the legitimacy of the Catholic Church. The Church holds the keys, or does not. I think any normalization will see this become a dividing point and all we can do is pray that few will reject the Catholic Church if and when such an agreement is reached.

 

[Dee_S]

**… there is a logical inconsistency between two opinions expressed from within the SSPX. **

The SSPX can not have it both ways, that is both a state of emergency that justifies their confessions and acceptance of the legitimacy of the Catholic Church. The Church holds the keys, or does not. I think any normalization will see this become a dividing point and all we can do is pray that few will reject the Catholic Church if and when such an agreement is reached.

:thumbsup:Agreed, something for us all to pray for.

I also cant grasp the inconsistency. How do they claim this emergency jurisdiction if they recognize the validity of the Sacraments of the Church?

Their constant justification seems to be spearheaded on the basis of the lay people who apply to them for these sacraments, for their spiritual needs to be met(?) so they supply them to fulfil a need of the Faithful

It was also continually reiterated that the Society exists solely and mainly for the formation of priests and the preservation of the priesthood and that they did the Faithful ‘a favor’ by making themselves available to offer them Mass and the Sacraments, because the priest was obliged under pain of mortal sin to say the prayers of his Breviary daily and not so obliged to say the Mass daily.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

There is no such thing in Canon Law. Supplied jurisdiction applies to the administration of two sacraments: Penance and Anointing of the Sick in cases of life and death where an ordinary priest cannot be found or there is no time to find one.

Don’t have all the relevant materials re Canon Law in front of me right now. Let me just rephrase what I said in the sense that supplied jurisdiction is a reality, not something the SSPX made up. It extends beyond Penance and Anointing of the Sick as the episcopal consecrations in the USSR demonstrate.

Government of an institute is always ordinary. It is regulated by three, sometimes four parts:

1. The mind of the founder
2. A rule of life (optional)
3. Constitutions (Proper Law)
4. Canon Law

Supplied jurisdiction would mean that one can govern without these. There is no allowance for such in public institutes. Even private associations must be governed according to Canon Law and Proper Law, to be given permission to call themselves Catholic.

I’m obviously not a canonist and so I can’t resolve the question of whether supplied jurisdiction can extend to the governance of an ecclesiastical institution or not. Take as a hypothetical case a group of Catholics with parishes, dioceses, et al. who are cut off from all communication with Rome. Would they govern their affairs by supplied jurisdiction? i.e. could such supplied jurisdiction in principle exist?

I don’t mean the SSPX. I mean the Vatican. The Holy Father created the concept of prelatures to accommodate Opus Dei.

Oh, right. I’d forgotten the Personal Prelature aspect.

The same happened in the past. The concept of religious congregation was created to accommodate the Vincentians and the Daughters of Charity. There were only religious orders The Church has to create the concept of congregations and laws for them to incorporate the religious congregations into the infrastructure of religious life. The Church can certainly create new canons to accommodate for the SSPX.

Actually, it does not act like a normal priestly fraternity. A normal priestly fraternity would be Maryknoll, Missionhurst, FSSP, ICRSS, and Oratorians. They do priestly ministry in a specific field of the apostolate, are self-governing, fund themselves, form their own men, and answer to the Holy Father.

They do not have lay followers, nor third orders, nor oblates, nor religious attached to them, nor do they own and operate their own parishes and chapels. They run those owned by the diocese. The laity can make use of their services, but are not allowed to refer to themselves as Orations, etc. They do not have religious attached to them. Even the Maryknoll. There is a community of Maryknoll Sisters, but they are not part of Maryknoll. They are Dominicans. They partner with the Maryknoll in the apostolate, but they do not share the spirituality of Maryknoll. They follow the spirituality of the Dominican Third Order and the statutes of the Dominican Third Order.

But what was the original place. No one seems to know. If there were such a place, the Holy Father would not be offering them a prelature.

Yes, theirs will be an unusual situation. We’ll have to wait and see.

 

[pnewton]

:thumbsup:Agreed, something for us all to pray for.

Getting past canon law, politics, theology, factions, etc., I think the one great hope we have here is in prayer. Even if we see no answer or think the division is too deep, there is always hope for unity in prayer, especially when all are joined as one body.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Supplied jurisdiction was never meant to be a long term condition. I have heard canon lawyers both ways, with the only ones that buy this argument being the SSPX proponents, in other words, a small minority. From a logical standpoint, if a confessor with proper jurisdiction exists, how does one argue that an emergency exists? A Catholic would not have to like a priests, liturgy, politics, theology, etc. to receive absolution, so where is the danger? Unless one goes so far as to deny the validity of the Catholic sacrament, which would truly be a schismatic mindset, then there is clearly no emergency.

What I do not understand is why any Catholic would role the dice and gamble on validity of SSPX confession, against the odds, when their soul, their salvation is at sake. It is far better to accept the Church’s postition that these priest have no canonical ministry within the Church.

This is the heart of the problem. The SSPX maintains that the New Mass is valid but so bad in its mentality/ambiance that it can seriously trouble the Faith of one attending it. Hence a Catholic who is troubled by it must not in conscience attend it. What applies to the Mass applies to the catecheses and other aspects of a typical parish. He has no choice if he wants to have these needs met but to quit attending the parish altogether (he can’t really go for some things and stay away for others) and go to a Traditional Mass centre (priory, chapel, etc.) which, in consequence, can act in everything it does out of supplied jurisdiction.

Now in my experience (admittedly limited to one city) there are parishes and parishes - some I am simply unable to attend. Catechetics too are a problem. So how much weight does the SSPX argument have?

The standard responses to the SSPX argument seem to be:

a) to deny there is a problem

b) to maintain that obedience to the Church outweighs any difficulties a Catholic might have with his parish.

Is that good enough?

 

[pnewton]

The standard responses to the SSPX argument seem to be:

a) to deny there is a problem

b) to maintain that obedience to the Church outweighs any difficulties a Catholic might have with his parish.

Is that good enough?

I prefer to stick to facts, logic and arguement. I deny the problem they believe in because of this, not just to deny. And obedince to God outweighs “difficulties”. As a Catholic, I believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church and that she remains the bride of Christ. Thus, obedience to the Church is obedience to God. That is why I am no longer Protestant.

No, it is simplistic to break down the response to the SSPX as you did, but even a cursory reading of your response reveals the a logical inconsistency, to wit, you switched from supplied jurisdiction in the sacrament of confession to the Mass. As no one has ever questioned the validity of the Mass at the SSPX, one simply can not apply the same reasoning to Mass as one does to confession.

And no, the SSPX can not act in everything out of supplied jurisdiction anymore than anyone else in other denominations could make such a claim based on their disbelief in the Catholic Church’s sacraments. Again, once one goes so far to justify this supplied jurisdiction that he argues against the efficacy of the sacraments of the Catholic Church, that is a very dangerous position. This is why this will not be allowed of the SSPX. Period. Excepting the validity of the Catholic Church’s sacraments is a condition of normalization. I would say that whenever one is using arguments used by ex-catholics and protestants, that it would be best to reconsider that course.

As to whether using the SSPX for all the Sacraments is justified by this because one is served better spiritually by them, I am curious as to exactly how this is different than any ex-catholic who has left for what they perceive to be the betterment of their spirituality. Fortunately, I do not think the SSPX is going to make these claims as an organization, though no doubt some in the SSPX may stand by them.

 

[JReducation]

Don’t have all the relevant materials re Canon Law in front of me right now. Let me just rephrase what I said in the sense that supplied jurisdiction is a reality, not something the SSPX made up. It extends beyond Penance and Anointing of the Sick as the episcopal consecrations in the USSR demonstrate.

You’re speaking about sacraments, not government. In the case of the episcopal consecrations in the USSR, there was not supplied jurisdiction. The Church had granted that authority for very particular circumstance with very specific parameters. In other words, the Vatican created a regulation that allowed these consecrations. The regulation was only for these people.

I’m obviously not a canonist and so I can’t resolve the question of whether supplied jurisdiction can extend to the governance of an ecclesiastical institution or not. Take as a hypothetical case a group of Catholics with parishes, dioceses, et al. who are cut off from all communication with Rome. Would they govern their affairs by supplied jurisdiction? i.e. could such supplied jurisdiction in principle exist?

No. Supplied jurisdiction would not exist. We have faced this situation many times in history, especially the Franciscans, Jesuits, Dominicans, Benedictines and some of the smaller congregations of missionaries that have been caught in places like Vietnam, China, N. Korea and other places where the Church is oppressed.

They must continue to govern according to the statutes and laws in place at the time that they were cut off. Let’s say that a diocese is cut off and the bishop is in poor health, he may not ordain a successor without a papal mandate. When that bishop dies, the diocese is sedevacante until the Holy Father can select a new bishop to occupy the See.

In the case of institutes of consecrated life and societies of apostolic life, there the constitutions that have been approved by the Church. We govern ourselves according to them. They tell us how to select leaders in such a situation, what offices we can fill without Rome’s approval and what is suspended until we can communicate with Rome. For example, one thing that we absolutely cannot do is to change any part of the constitution. Those men or women who are cut off, must continue to govern themselves according to the constitution that was in effect when they last had contact with the Vatican.

It happened in 1970 that we revised our constitutions and Pope Paul VI approved the revision. Those Franciscans that were cut off did not know about the revisions. They continued to live under the constitutions of 1569 until they were able to get their hands on a copy of the new statutes.

The same happens with parishes and dioceses. Nothing may change unless it’s by order of the bishop. The law defines what the bishop can and cannot change.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Now in my experience (admittedly limited to one city) there are parishes and parishes - some I am simply unable to attend. Catechetics too are a problem. So how much weight does the SSPX argument have?

This is the issue that concerns me. As you admit, there are parishes and then there are parishes. I have been to enough strange Masses to know that there are places I’d rather not have to attend on a weekly basis also. However, in the same diocese I have been to, or heard about, reverant, orthodox Masses. So in probably 80% of situations in the US and most of Europe, there would be an ordinary parish that one could attend. Certainly within the driving range that I have heard some boast about to get to an SSPX chapel.

What I hear about most often as “unacceptable” are really very minor things like the music selection, or the fact that Sister who runs the CCD program doesn’t wear a habit. Yes, I know there are priests denying the Immaculate Conception, or religious aggitating for women priests, etc., but those are truly a minority. And there are approved pathways to have those things corrected.

Remember that the spiritual works of mercy are:
•To instruct the ignorant;
•To counsel the doubtful;
•To admonish sinners;
•To bear wrongs patiently;
•To forgive offences willingly;
•To comfort the afflicted;
•To pray for the living and the dead.

Are they instructing the ignorant, counseling the doubtful, bearing wrong patiently, forgiving offences willingly, or comforting the afflicted when they leave their ordinary parish to attend and receiving sacraments like confirmation or confession at a chapel run by suspended priests?

I have seen and heard plenty of very gleeful admonishing the sinner (especially on CAF), but I’m not sure that what that Act of Mercy is supposed to mean. (NOT pointing specifically at you Justin).

I am very concerned for the lay folks who attend these chapels. Whatever they say about their learning and study, they are not priests. They are the sheep who should be lead to safe harbors by their shephards. It is not right for the priests and bishops to conflate things like ugly vestments and felt banners with true heterodoxy and lead someone out of a Catholic parish where the pastor simply suffers from bad taste. Worse, there is an entire generation of people who have grown up with this bunker mentality who I pray will be able to come back into full communion and not lose their faith entirely in the transition.

So, like Dee, I am praying.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

I prefer to stick to facts, logic and arguement.

Me too!

I deny the problem they believe in because of this, not just to deny. And obedince to God outweighs “difficulties”. As a Catholic, I believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church and that she remains the bride of Christ. Thus, obedience to the Church is obedience to God. That is why I am no longer Protestant.

I can only agree with the third to fifth sentences. My issue is with the first and second. To what extent does going along with a local parish liturgy represent obedience to the Church? Going beyond liturgy, if a priest of a parish teaches something that is not in accord with Catholic doctrine, and obliges his catechists to do likewise, what does one do? Shop around for another parish? And if there is a problem in another parish, then go on to the next? Or is one obliged, in obedience to the Church, to remain in one’s own parish and not rock the boat? There is a real problem here.

No, it is simplistic to break down the response to the SSPX as you did, but even a cursory reading of your response reveals the a logical inconsistency, to wit, you switched from supplied jurisdiction in the sacrament of confession to the Mass. As no one has ever questioned the validity of the Mass at the SSPX, one simply can not apply the same reasoning to Mass as one does to confession.

Let me make it clear that I am not advocating the position of the SSPX, just giving it. Supplied jurisdiction as understood by the SSPX goes beyond confession: it extends to all the other sacraments and things like marriage annulments. And for the SSPX, the *validity *of the New Mass has never been the issue.

And no, the SSPX can not act in everything out of supplied jurisdiction anymore than anyone else in other denominations could make such a claim based on their disbelief in the Catholic Church’s sacraments.

Again, once one goes so far to justify this supplied jurisdiction that he argues against the efficacy of the sacraments of the Catholic Church, that is a very dangerous position. This is why this will not be allowed of the SSPX. Period. Excepting the validity of the Catholic Church’s sacraments is a condition of normalization. I would say that whenever one is using arguments used by ex-catholics and protestants, that it would be best to reconsider that course.

An interesting side-issue: do members of non-Catholic religions have supplied jurisdiction for the sacraments they confer, like baptism and marriage? I would imagine yes, otherwise Protestant marriages would all be invalid, which the Church doesn’t hold. Or perhaps jurisdiction isn’t required for non-Catholic sacraments. Point though is that the SSPX is not in the same position as a non-Catholic denomination. What is required of a Catholic is not required of a Protestant, and the SSPX are still considered to be Catholics.

As to whether using the SSPX for all the Sacraments is justified by this because one is served better spiritually by them, I am curious as to exactly how this is different than any ex-catholic who has left for what they perceive to be the betterment of their spirituality. Fortunately, I do not think the SSPX is going to make these claims as an organization, though no doubt some in the SSPX may stand by them.

Different case, really. Protestants, or ex-catholics who join Protestant denominations do not like the Mass because it is Catholic (Real Presence, Sacrifice of Cavalry renewed). The SSPX objects to the New Mass because they maintain it is too Protestant…

 

[Justin_Swanton]

No. Supplied jurisdiction would not exist. We have faced this situation many times in history, especially the Franciscans, Jesuits, Dominicans, Benedictines and some of the smaller congregations of missionaries that have been caught in places like Vietnam, China, N. Korea and other places where the Church is oppressed.

They must continue to govern according to the statutes and laws in place at the time that they were cut off. Let’s say that a diocese is cut off and the bishop is in poor health, he may not ordain a successor without a papal mandate. When that bishop dies, the diocese is sedevacante until the Holy Father can select a new bishop to occupy the See.

Is this true? I say it with all due respect. I find it difficult to imagine that a bishop in some isolated part of the world, cut off from communication with Rome, would not ensure the sacramental future of his flock by consecrating a successor. This situation presupposes total isolation from the rest of the Church, and a state of affairs that will last a long time, like a persecution that has driven the Church underground in that region. Is there no case of this in history?

 

[Justin_Swanton]

This is the issue that concerns me. As you admit, there are parishes and then there are parishes. I have been to enough strange Masses to know that there are places I’d rather not have to attend on a weekly basis also. However, in the same diocese I have been to, or heard about, reverant, orthodox Masses. So in probably 80% of situations in the US and most of Europe, there would be an ordinary parish that one could attend. Certainly within the driving range that I have heard some boast about to get to an SSPX chapel.

What I hear about most often as “unacceptable” are really very minor things like the music selection, or the fact that Sister who runs the CCD program doesn’t wear a habit. Yes, I know there are priests denying the Immaculate Conception, or religious aggitating for women priests, etc., but those are truly a minority. And there are approved pathways to have those things corrected.

Remember that the spiritual works of mercy are:
•To instruct the ignorant;
•To counsel the doubtful;
•To admonish sinners;
•To bear wrongs patiently;
•To forgive offences willingly;
•To comfort the afflicted;
•To pray for the living and the dead.

Are they instructing the ignorant, counseling the doubtful, bearing wrong patiently, forgiving offences willingly, or comforting the afflicted when they leave their ordinary parish to attend and receiving sacraments like confirmation or confession at a chapel run by suspended priests?

I have seen and heard plenty of very gleeful admonishing the sinner (especially on CAF), but I’m not sure that what that Act of Mercy is supposed to mean. (NOT pointing specifically at you Justin).

I am very concerned for the lay folks who attend these chapels. Whatever they say about their learning and study, they are not priests. They are the sheep who should be lead to safe harbors by their shephards. It is not right for the priests and bishops to conflate things like ugly vestments and felt banners with true heterodoxy and lead someone out of a Catholic parish where the pastor simply suffers from bad taste. Worse, there is an entire generation of people who have grown up with this bunker mentality who I pray will be able to come back into full communion and not lose their faith entirely in the transition.

So, like Dee, I am praying.

This is the best answer I have yet read. To sum it up:

1. Any Catholic can find a parish within reach that offers an acceptable Mass. (true, I have been able to)
2. The things one usually objects to in a Mass are relatively unimportant or at least do not equate to heresy. (true, though the music can really be uuurgh sometimes)

For me the real problem is not so much the liturgy as the catechism. My assessment after about ten years experience of parishes is that the average Catholic is ***not ***being taught his or her Faith, and this is far more serious than whether the congregation sings He’s Got the Whole World in His Hands or not. Without an understanding and appreciation of the core doctrines of Catholicism, and the outlook that comes from them, the rest means precious little. If the Church does not imbibe her truths into her faithful, then she has lost most of her reason for existing.

 

[JReducation]

An interesting side-issue: do members of non-Catholic religions have supplied jurisdiction for the sacraments they confer, like baptism and marriage? I would imagine yes, otherwise Protestant marriages would all be invalid, which the Church doesn’t hold. Or perhaps jurisdiction isn’t required for non-Catholic sacraments. Point though is that the SSPX is not in the same position as a non-Catholic denomination. What is required of a Catholic is not required of a Protestant, and the SSPX are still considered to be Catholics.

Different case, really. Protestants, or ex-catholics who join Protestant denominations do not like the Mass because it is Catholic (Real Presence, Sacrifice of Cavalry renewed). The SSPX objects to the New Mass because they maintain it is too Protestant…

Non Catholics have jurisdiction. They do not need faculties from the Catholic Church. We have no authority over them. Take for example the Orthodox. All of their sacraments a valid and licit. As long as they comply with their canons, they’re good to go. The same is true of Protestants with regard to Baptism and Marriage. If the minister has the authority from his ecclesial community, then he’s good to go. We have no authority there.

Is this true? I say it with all due respect. I find it difficult to imagine that a bishop in some isolated part of the world, cut off from communication with Rome, would not ensure the sacramental future of his flock by consecrating a successor. This situation presupposes total isolation from the rest of the Church, and a state of affairs that will last a long time, like a persecution that has driven the Church underground in that region. Is there no case of this in history?

The process by which bishops are selected has undergone many changes over the centuries. They’ve always had to be ordained; however, once upon a time, they were elected by the local Church, not named by the pope. Naming by the pope is rather new law. The current law supersedes all prior laws. The current law is that no bishop can ordain another bishop without a papal mandate. The law makes no exception and no exception have been made by the Holy See. I very good example of this are the Communist countries in Asia. Since 1983 when the new code of law was put in place, some dioceses have gone years without a bishop, until Rome is able to approve a bishop.

The sacramental future is protected as long as you have priests to celebrate the Eucharist and hear confessions. If you don’t have them, you still have laymen who can baptize. Marriage can take place without a deacon or a priest, if the situation requires it, because the couple jointly are the ministers, not the deacon or priest. In the case where you don’t have mass and confession, which has happened, you’re not culpable. The sacraments are the surest way to salvation, not the only way.

This has been a point of contention between the Vatican and China. Whatever the Vatican knows about the bishops in China, it’s not saying. This is good. It’s for their safety. But when the government began intervening in the ordination of bishops, probably around the 1950s, the Church excommunicates those bishops. Even though there is a need for them, communion with the Primacy trumps the need for a bishop.

This was the whole argument between Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre. To this day, Pope Benedict maintains that need or no need, the communion with the Primacy is key to the life of the Church. You can’t ordain a bishop, just because you’re a dying bishop and you want to ensure that there is a bishop after you’re gone. You’re not the pope. You have no authority to make such a decision. Today’s code of law has taken that decision out of the hands of the local churches in the Latin Church.

This rule does not apply to Eastern Catholics. It is slightly different in their case. The Patriarch issues the mandate to ordain a bishop and he must inform the pope. He does not need to wait for the pope to issue the mandate. The Eastern Catholics are in full communion with the Primacy, but with parameters that protect their autonomy.

The case is that no bishop can ordain without a papal mandate. There is a canon that may create some wiggle room. It speaks about a threat to the Church. In which case, the bishop can act without waiting for Rome. This has been put to the test. Archbishop Lefebvre tried to use it and Pope John Paul said that he would not allow the canon to be applied to the Archbishop, which a pope can do. He can decide that a certain canon only applies to those born on odd numbered days of the year. Next year, he can change it to those born on even numbered days. It’s only an example folks. It has never been done.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

This is the best answer I have yet read. To sum it up:

1. Any Catholic can find a parish within reach that offers an acceptable Mass. (true, I have been able to)
2. The things one usually objects to in a Mass are relatively unimportant or at least do not equate to heresy. (true, though the music can really be uuurgh sometimes)

For me the real problem is not so much the liturgy as the catechism. My assessment after about ten years experience of parishes is that the average Catholic is ***not ***being taught his or her Faith, and this is far more serious than whether the congregation sings He’s Got the Whole World in His Hands or not. Without an understanding and appreciation of the core doctrines of Catholicism, and the outlook that comes from them, the rest means precious little. If the Church does not imbibe her truths into her faithful, then she has lost most of her reason for existing.

I completely agree. I find it silly when people object to a hymn because it’s Protestant. I read the words in the hymn and ask myself, “Where is the heresy in this hymn?” A perfect example, “A Mighty Fortress”. Luther took it from one of the Psalms. “Amazing Grace” was a poem that Scottish Protestants put to music. A lot of the stuff by the St. Louis Jesuits may be cheesy, but it’s all from Scripture. Some of the melodies are actually very nice.

I have a very close friend who is a diocesan priest. He has CP. People asked for an EF mass in his parish. There is no way on God’s green earth that a priest with CP can celebrate the EF. There are too many movements involved. This priest sits on a stool behind the altar and celebrates a very reverent OF.

Someone had the audacity to suggest that he find other things to do that do not involve celebrating mass to allow for the EF to replace the OF at this parish. Give me a break. Be happy that you have a good and holy priest.

Catechesis is a real concern. I volunteer at a parish where I’m always putting things on the table for the DRE to look at, because it concerns me. The teachers are holy people who truly love their faith and want to share it with the kids, but they need more training and better materials.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ByzCathCantor]

My assessment after about ten years experience of parishes is that the average Catholic is ***not ***being taught his or her Faith, and this is far more serious than whether the congregation sings He’s Got the Whole World in His Hands or not.

I agree wholeheartedly with your overall assessment, and realize that you are using liturgical music as an example in order to make the “substance over form” argument. I would only suggest that the desire for some to increase usage of non-traditional music during the Mass is a symptom of the more essential problems you have raised, and only serves to reinforce a more superficial understanding of Catholicism and Catholic tradition among the faithful.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

I agree wholeheartedly with your overall assessment, and realize that you are using liturgical music as an example in order to make the “substance over form” argument. I would only suggest that the desire for some to increase usage of non-traditional music during the Mass is a symptom of the more essential problems you have raised, and only serves to reinforce a more superficial understanding of Catholicism and Catholic tradition among the faithful.

This raises the issue of Catholic identity. For me this is a major problem, perhaps ***the ***problem, in the Church. Catholics today, as a whole, hardly know why they are Catholic. Their grasp of the Faith is fragmentary, weak and mixed with the whole gamut of secular values and ideals. Question is, why is this so? If the really wild Masses are few and far between and the hierarchy is basically doing its job, then where does this great, empty void come from?

I’ve been wondering if there is a link between the way many Catholics think and the way they practise their religion, at least to some extent. Music is an example. I think there is objectively a distinction between music that fits the Catholic mould and music that doesn’t. Some songs of Protestant origin fit in fine, others do not. By the way, on the subject of Protestantism, I was a born-again Christian for a period of my life and the difference between that religion and Catholicism is enormous. When I converted, it wasn’t a question of picking up a few additional dogmas; I had to change one God for another. One needs to realise the religious mentality that kind of music was written to express.

Bringing music of a secular or otherwise non-Catholic nature into the Mass may not be heretical or even intentionally irreverent, but it does weaken the Catholic identity of the liturgy. I can think of a few other things that might have the same effect, like ministers of the Eucharist in lay clothing. I’m writing this off the cuff - there is certainly ***something ***that is weakening the Catholic identity of the laity. It really is important to find out what it is, and do something about it.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Bringing music of a secular or otherwise non-Catholic nature into the Mass may not be heretical or even intentionally irreverent, but it does weaken the Catholic identity of the liturgy.

On the “Eastern front”, this would simply not happen. There are liturgical hymns that are prescribed for use during the Divine Liturgy. Variants (different melodies using the liturgical text) are quite common in some instances, yet these melodies would come from tradition and not from modern, secular sources. There are other hymns that are not part of the liturgy, para-liturgical hymns, which can be sung before or after the DL, but not during.

Yet, this “lack” of variety does not result in the lack of engagement of the faithful. Cradles and converts alike would tell you that there is enough variation coming from the various cycles of worship (feast days and seasons, etc.) that the DL from week to week is hardly a static experience. I mention this because many cite the need to “engage” the faithful creatively as a reason for looking outside the tradition for hymns. Surely if that is a genuine need, than the true focus of the Mass is blurred beyond recognition.

But now, perhaps, back to regularly scheduled programming for this thread …

I do think this subject - liturgical music - is part and parcel of the tension expressed by the SSPX faithful, by that I mean to say that it is identified as one of those elements more commonly found in worship using the OF that one simply would not encounter with the EF Mass. Knowing how the chant tradition is maintained in the East and similarly as regards the EF, I would say that there is an issues as to adherence to “norms” for the OF than should not be confused with distinctions between “forms”. However, the norms do indeed leave room for significant judgment which, if unchecked, will inevitably lead to the variation observed across the OF spectrum.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

I do think this subject - liturgical music - is part and parcel of the tension expressed by the SSPX faithful, by that I mean to say that it is identified as one of those elements more commonly found in worship using the OF that one simply would not encounter with the EF Mass.

I suspect that the SSPX opposition to the New Mass comes partly from equating the Mass itself with the way it is celebrated in many parishes. As someone pointed out, it is difficult to tell a New Mass said in Latin (especially if sung, with Gregorian Chant, incense and the rest) from a Tridentine Mass. We used to have a Latin Sung OF Mass at Harare cathedral, celebrated by a very conservative Jesuit priest. Bishop - then Father - Williamson encouraged us to go to it. Funny old world.