SSPX communique to Rome

[Justin_Swanton]

Might I ask where you get this idea from? The Sunday obligation is objectively an obligation. I do not think the Church ever interjected a subjective element like this in this obligation.

I got it from a little knowledge of Canon Law and good dose of common sense. A little knowledge is perhaps a dangerous thing, but one thing that is not open to misinterpretation is the fact that the legislator cannot foresee every particular case. Some situations can arise that are not covered by the law, and in these one has to apply a set of principles to determine whether that particular law applies or not. One principle is that no law may harm the individuals concerned: Prima lex salus animarum.

Let me turn the argument around. Let’s work on the assumption that every law must be obeyed, regardless of the circumstances. The law states that Catholics must attend Mass on Sunday, with a few exceptions provided for by the Code: sickness, distance, etc. So if a puppet Mass is the only one available, one must go to it.

Now the law, or more precisely the directives of Sacrosanctum Concilium, require that the faithful participate ***fully ***in the Mass. It’s a big thing in that document. That means that if the congregation claps, you clap; if the congregation dances, you dance; if the congregation holds hands and sways from side to side, you do the same. One poster recommended keeping one’s attention on the missal or praying the rosary, and blocking out what is going on around one. That goes flat against the directives laid down by Sacrosanctum Concilium. The moment you start deciding to what extent you will or won’t participate in the liturgy of a parish, you are opposing the will of the Church. Thus runs this argumentation to its logical conclusion.

This is not just a contrived argument. Psychologically, one must take the liturgy as a whole. If Father is justified in celebrating a Mass to the extent that a layperson has a grave obligation of attending it, then that layperson has to try and mentally accept everything that is going on in it. You can’t pick and choose (you can try to, but you can’t really).

This line of reasoning was exerting its pressure on me at one time and then, suddenly, the whole thing collapsed like a house of cards.

First, this is subjective. Objectively, the Holy Sacrament contains abundant graces. I do not see anywhere that the Church says it is up to the individual to rely on his feelings of the Mass as to whether or not he can summon up enough feel good to participate. I know this is said so much it is trite, but the truth remains. We simply must put our principles (faith) above personality and not rely so much on how we feel.

Objecting to Amazing Grace is subjective, since there is nothing really wrong with that hymn. Objecting to a liturgical dancer pirouetting around with a missal is not. There are - objectively - things that can fit into a Mass and things that cannot. If one is troubled by things of the latter category to the extent that one wants to run for the exit, then there is a real problem.

 

[Dee_S]

No, that is not what I want. I’ve had enough of it for now. I will settle for a reverently prayed OF Mass, with respect given and shown to Our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament, and sans shenanigans and sixties-type sermons and music.

 

[Dee_S]

One of my favorite saints, St. John Mary Vianney, used a similar approach, though in reverse. For example, when he wanted to address the issue of the wrongness of sins of the flesh to his parishioners, he first began by spelling out in no uncertain terms about the sins of St. Mary Magdalene before she met our Lord. He went on and on about it, so as to give a clear picture of her previous life.

He is also one of my favorite saints, but, sorry to say in this instance he was, without realizing it,** totally wrong **(not in his subject matter or his delivery of it) but, in that St Mary Magdalene was not who he said she was, nor did he have any proof she was besides stories that had been passed down from a sermon of Pope Gregory (who only referred to her as an adulteress, which too was an erroneous hypothesis) - passed down and embellished through the Medieval Era and finally landing on his plate:blush:

In 1969 the Vatican, during the papacy of Paul VI, without commenting on Pope Gregory’s reasoning,[17] implicitly rejected it by separating Luke’s sinful woman, Mary of Bethany, and Mary Magdala via the Roman Missal.[18]

Her name comes from the town of Magdala in Galilee, where she originated. Scripture introduces her as a woman “who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out” (Lk. 8:2).

Pope Gregory the Great’s homily on Luke’s gospel dated 14 September 591 first suggested that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute: “She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary, we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark. And what did these seven devils signify, if not all the vices? … It is clear, brothers, that the woman previously used the unguent to perfume her flesh in forbidden acts.”(homily XXXIII)[16]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene

So who is the real Mary Magdalene? Father Collins, who wrote the “Mary Magdalene” article in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, told Catholic News Service, “Luke describes Mary Magdalene as a woman from whom Jesus cast out seven demons, and that characterization of Mary Magdalene is repeated in the longer canonical ending of Mark’s Gospel.”

   But he noted that in Jesus' time it was not  uncommon to attribute physical or   mental afflictions to demonic  possession and this did not imply that the   possessed person was  sinful. "Whatever affected Mary Magdalene was considered to   be the  effect of demonic possession so she would not have been considered a    public sinner the way the medieval legends have made her out to be," he  said.

americancatholic.org/News/DaVinciCode/magdalenetradition.asp

Today’s scholars, more and more, embrace the earlier view of St. Augustine, in the fourth century, who said, “The Holy Spirit made Magdalene the Apostle of the Apostles.”

“Mary Magdalene is a founding mother of the Church,” says Johnson. “She ministered to Jesus during his own ministry, sharing things with him, and was one of his followers in Galilee. She was a faithful disciple during the last hours of his life.”
americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0506.asp

I hope this goes some way to restoring such a great woman’s reputation!

 

[pnewton]

Objecting to Amazing Grace is subjective, since there is nothing really wrong with that hymn. Objecting to a liturgical dancer pirouetting around with a missal is not. There are - objectively - things that can fit into a Mass and things that cannot. If one is troubled by things of the latter category to the extent that one wants to run for the exit, then there is a real problem.

I see what all you are saying. I just don’t get the connection to attending the SSPX Mass. Are the Masses in South Africa often puppet Masses? I have never heard of that. Here, the choice is to attend the SSPX for preference of the TLM. I do not think preferring Latin to the vernacular, or chant to Amazing Grace is on the same par as your examples.

 

[Dee_S]

Let me turn the argument around. Let’s work on the assumption that every law must be obeyed, regardless of the circumstances. The law states that Catholics must attend Mass on Sunday, with a few exceptions provided for by the Code: sickness, distance, etc. So if a puppet Mass is the only one available, one must go to it.

The law of the Church regarding Sunday Obligation enshrines the Third Commandment - that’s how far back this obligation goes…can’t get more solid than that. Nowhere in canon law or in the history of the Church, are exceptions made based on the subjective notions or feelings of the participants. If so, could you please let us know?

Prima lex salus animarum

Yes the primary law of the Church is the salvation of souls, but let us not confuse the liturgy with sanctification.
**“The primary aim of the liturgy is to worship God by prayer and sacrifice; it’s second is the sanctification of mankind:”**The St Andrew Daily Missal

It can be conceded that the way the liturgy is carried out is not, and probably cannot always be everything to all people. Meaning that ** does not exist to cater to all their individual subjective dispositions. **It is not it’s primary function.

Obviously a puppet Mass would disturb most people, but having watched the video clip it appeared that this was taking place in an old age home (or similar) and the full circumstances and reasons for them using puppets is not shown.** To apply some good Catholic common sense here, it does appear that we do not have all the facts, and that this video clip is being aired ‘out of context’** by those who’s agenda is to highlight what they perceive as liturgical abuses. It is by no means the norm in the Catholic Church.

Now the law, or more precisely the directives of Sacrosanctum Concilium, require that the faithful participate ***fully ***in the Mass.The moment you start deciding to what extent you will or won’t participate in the liturgy of a parish, you are opposing the will of the Church.

Very true and it is not only the recent SC that recommend full participation at Mass.

**St Pius X says: **“Active participation in the most holy mysteries and in the solemn public prayer of the Church, is the primary and indispensable source of the true christian spirit.” Motu proprio, 1903

This is not just a contrived argument. Psychologically, one must take the liturgy as a whole. If Father is justified in celebrating a Mass to the extent that a layperson has a grave obligation of attending it, then that layperson has to try and mentally accept everything that is going on in it. You can’t pick and choose (you can try to, but you can’t really).

This is a somewhat exaggerated view of the onus to participate. One would never have to mentally accept what is repulsive to them. The obligation on those who exercise the royal priesthood, is to do just that. Mentally to elevate themselves above what is sometimes not their personal preference of expression and to adhere to the spirit of the liturgy. Unless - and this must be the exception - there is a grave mockery or act of disrespect that so obvious that personal subjective opinion is not the only basis for criticism.

Objecting to Amazing Grace is subjective, since there is nothing really wrong with that hymn. Objecting to a liturgical dancer pirouetting around with a missal is not. There are - objectively - things that can fit into a Mass and things that cannot. If one is troubled by things of the latter category to the extent that one wants to run for the exit, then there is a real problem.

Pirouetting, if done modestly - is harmless in itself and would indicate more of a lack of taste in the choreography - rather than an open sign of disrespect that classes it as a ‘liturgical abuse.’
Tradition/SSPX chapels are also not spared what are sometimes truly awful and ongoing performances from their choirs which seriously distract and anger them. In some persons even to the point of sin, to others of opting to go to the Low Mass to escape. They are told to suffer this manfully and offer it up Why don’t OF Catholics do the same?

I’m sure Catholics over the centuries have had similar gripes…but that does not excuse from the obligation to Keep Holy the Sabbath Day.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

I see what all you are saying. I just don’t get the connection to attending the SSPX Mass. Are the Masses in South Africa often puppet Masses? I have never heard of that. Here, the choice is to attend the SSPX for preference of the TLM. I do not think preferring Latin to the vernacular, or chant to Amazing Grace is on the same par as your examples.

No, no. This was not meant to be a description of a standard NOM Mass, just use of a radical case to test whether an argument holds up. There are two extreme positions on the obligation of Mass attendance:

• from the mainstream side: one must go any available Mass on Sunday, regardless of how it is celebrated, with puppets, pirouettes or whatever. The obligation to attendance must logically extend to participation.
• from the SSPX side: one may never go to a NOM Mass on Sunday, regardless of how it is celebrated, with Latin, Gregorian Chant, or whatever. Some will even extend this to Tridentine Masses celebrated in mainstream churches.

The truth, I feel, is between these extremes.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

No, no. This was not meant to be a description of a standard NOM Mass, just use of a radical case to test whether an argument holds up. There are two extreme positions on the obligation of Mass attendance:

• from the mainstream side: one must go any available Mass on Sunday, regardless of how it is celebrated, with puppets, pirouettes or whatever. The obligation to attendance must logically extend to participation.
• from the SSPX side: one may never go to a NOM Mass on Sunday, regardless of how it is celebrated, with Latin, Gregorian Chant, or whatever. Some will even extend this to Tridentine Masses celebrated in mainstream churches.

The truth, I feel, is between these extremes.

The truth is that one must go to Mass. As we all conceded earlier in this thread, the vast majority of Sunday Masses are ordinary affairs, low Mass if you will.

However, in the case that one is not able to get to the usual Mass - on vacation, schedule mix ups, etc. One is obliged to attend at whatever Mass one can get to. Perhaps it is the EF and one doesn’t like all that Latin and old-fashion fussiness. Perhaps it is the OF where the teen choir sings and one doesn’t like “rock and roll” at Mass. Doesn’t matter, you go anyway.

In that example, there is no legitimate reason to miss. And I certainly hope that a regular Mass-goer isn’t going to have their faith jarred by attending an occasional Mass outside their comfort zone.

Puppets, liturgical dancers, and other nonsense are few and far between. Even a parish that had a roster of such, would only break them out for special Sundays. Just like the trumpets on Easter or violins on Christmas Eve. And just as a sung high Mass isn’t a regular Sunday thing in at an SSPX chapel.

 

[Denise1957]

He is also one of my favorite saints, but, sorry to say in this instance he was, without realizing it,** totally wrong **(not in his subject matter or his delivery of it) but, in that St Mary Magdalene was not who he said she was, nor did he have any proof she was besides stories that had been passed down from a sermon of Pope Gregory (who only referred to her as an adulteress, which too was an erroneous hypothesis) - passed down and embellished through the Medieval Era and finally landing on his plate:blush:

In 1969 the Vatican, during the papacy of Paul VI, without commenting on Pope Gregory’s reasoning,[17] implicitly rejected it by separating Luke’s sinful woman, Mary of Bethany, and Mary Magdala via the Roman Missal.[18]

Her name comes from the town of Magdala in Galilee, where she originated. Scripture introduces her as a woman “who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out” (Lk. 8:2).

Pope Gregory the Great’s homily on Luke’s gospel dated 14 September 591 first suggested that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute: “She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary, we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark. And what did these seven devils signify, if not all the vices? … It is clear, brothers, that the woman previously used the unguent to perfume her flesh in forbidden acts.”(homily XXXIII)[16]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene

So who is the real Mary Magdalene? Father Collins, who wrote the “Mary Magdalene” article in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, told Catholic News Service, “Luke describes Mary Magdalene as a woman from whom Jesus cast out seven demons, and that characterization of Mary Magdalene is repeated in the longer canonical ending of Mark’s Gospel.”

   But he noted that in Jesus' time it was not  uncommon to attribute physical or   mental afflictions to demonic  possession and this did not imply that the   possessed person was  sinful. "Whatever affected Mary Magdalene was considered to   be the  effect of demonic possession so she would not have been considered a    public sinner the way the medieval legends have made her out to be," he  said.

americancatholic.org/News/DaVinciCode/magdalenetradition.asp

Today’s scholars, more and more, embrace the earlier view of St. Augustine, in the fourth century, who said, “The Holy Spirit made Magdalene the Apostle of the Apostles.”

“Mary Magdalene is a founding mother of the Church,” says Johnson. “She ministered to Jesus during his own ministry, sharing things with him, and was one of his followers in Galilee. She was a faithful disciple during the last hours of his life.”
americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0506.asp

I hope this goes some way to restoring such a great woman’s reputation!

I don’t know where you get the idea that I may have been referring to St. Mary Magdalene as having formerly been a prostitute or an adulteress. St. John Mary Vianney did not say this, nor did I in my post. That she led a sinful life of sensuality is what (if I recall correctly) is what St. John Mary Vianney said. There is no indication that she was a prostitute, and to be an adulteress, she would have to have been married, and I don’t recall that she was. I think that there is scriptural refrence to her having led a sinful life, outside of being possessed by the demons. I’ll look it up today and see. She, too, is one of my favorite saints and intercessors. In fact, I’ve thought have choosing her as my confirmation saint, if I’m ever confirmed. And isn’t she considered to be a penitent?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

This is not just a contrived argument. Psychologically, one must take the liturgy as a whole. If Father is justified in celebrating a Mass to the extent that a layperson has a grave obligation of attending it, then that layperson has to try and mentally accept everything that is going on in it. You can’t pick and choose (you can try to, but you can’t really).

Indeed it is not a contrived argument. While I did not quote your entire post, I congratulate you on very succinctly laying out the underlying reasons why abusive practices can be so damaging.

 

[Denise1957]

No, no. This was not meant to be a description of a standard NOM Mass, just use of a radical case to test whether an argument holds up. There are two extreme positions on the obligation of Mass attendance:

• from the mainstream side: one must go any available Mass on Sunday, regardless of how it is celebrated, with puppets, pirouettes or whatever. The obligation to attendance must logically extend to participation.
• from the SSPX side: one may never go to a NOM Mass on Sunday, regardless of how it is celebrated, with Latin, Gregorian Chant, or whatever. Some will even extend this to Tridentine Masses celebrated in mainstream churches.

The truth, I feel, is between these extremes.

Regarding what you stated above about some in the SSPX extending this to Tridentine Masses that are celebrated in the mainstream churches, I can tell you, as a former SSPXer, that two SSPX priests advised me against attending a diocesan-approved TLM. One SSPX priest told me (after I told him that I attended the local FSSP parish one weekday) that I shouldn’t go because the ordination of the FSSP priest may be of doubtful validity, and therefore the sacraments, such as Holy Eucharist, may not be validly consecrated.

The other SSPX priest contacted me after I left the SSPX and encouraged me to return to the SSPX chapel, saying that he worried that I would lose my faith if I attended the FSSP parish. I assured him that this would not happen. He was sincerely concerned for me, and was very charitable and kind about it. Now this does not mean that all SSPX priests would advise against attending a diocesan-approved (FSSP or otherwise) parish, but I think it may indicate a general trend. I think that there are other former SSPX adherents here on the forum who have had a similar experience.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

The law of the Church regarding Sunday Obligation enshrines the Third Commandment - that’s how far back this obligation goes…can’t get more solid than that. Nowhere in canon law or in the history of the Church, are exceptions made based on the subjective notions or feelings of the participants. If so, could you please let us know?

…

Pirouetting, if done modestly - is harmless in itself and would indicate more of a lack of taste in the choreography - rather than an open sign of disrespect that classes it as a ‘liturgical abuse.’

I have tried to explain the difference between a subjective dislike of something in the liturgy, and an inability to accept what amounts to an objective abuse in it. If one cannot see that a pirouetting dancer (with missal) has as much place in the Mass as a circus elephant, then there is nothing more I can say. It’s a first principles thing: you see it or you don’t.

The subjective argument as used by several posters here may be founded on the fact that a Catholic who calls a puppet, or rock music, or a dancer, a liturgical abuse cannot quote a specific Church law or directive to back himself up. There is no specific law against puppets, for example, just as there are no specific laws against many other things - laws cannot cover every imaginable case. The Catholic can only cite his sense of what is does or doesn’t belong in a Mass, using general principles like the need for reverence, etc.

This being the case, there is, in fact, some justification for the subjective argument. Traditional Catholics consider Communion in the hand a liturgical abuse, but it need not be if done reverently. A form of CITH (a little different from what is practised now) was common in the Church for centuries, after all.

Also the music issue. A Traditionalist may object to Amazing Grace because its origin is Protestant, and hence adopting it would imply a certain ‘justification’ of Protestantism. But that doesn’t wash. One of the formal titles of the Pope is ‘Supreme Pontiff’ - Pontifex Maximus - which was the title of the pagan Roman high priest, the chief official of a false religion that was a good deal further from the Catholic epicentre than Protestantism. The Church has always been capable of adopting terms and practices from non-Catholic religions and making them Catholic.

 

[Lormar]

Regarding what you stated above about some in the SSPX extending this to Tridentine Masses that are celebrated in the mainstream churches, I can tell you, as a former SSPXer, that two SSPX priests advised me against attending a diocesan-approved TLM. One SSPX priest told me (after I told him that I attended the local FSSP parish one weekday) that I shouldn’t go because the ordination of the FSSP priest may be of doubtful validity, and therefore the sacraments, such as Holy Eucharist, may not be validly consecrated.

The other SSPX priest contacted me after I left the SSPX and encouraged me to return to the SSPX chapel, saying that he worried that I would lose my faith if I attended the FSSP parish. I assured him that this would not happen. He was sincerely concerned for me, and was very charitable and kind about it. Now this does not mean that all SSPX priests would advise against attending a diocesan-approved (FSSP or otherwise) parish, but I think it may indicate a general trend. I think that there are other former SSPX adherents here on the forum who have had a similar experience.

If this doesn’t sound familiar, I don’t know what does! That about sums it up.

To me, the most diabolical thing that is done, is that they put doubt in your mind so that you are forever questioning everything, and I do mean everything, in the Church.

 

[Lormar]

Justin, why don’t you just put your trust and confidence in the Church (where it belongs) instead of in yourself and the SSPX? I don’t recall the SSPX getting a mandate from Heaven making them the authority of what is and is not Catholic.

 

[Dee_S]

Originally Posted by Denise1957 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
"One of my favorite saints, St. John Mary Vianney, used a similar approach, though in reverse. For example, when he wanted to address the issue of the wrongness of sins of the flesh to his parishioners, he first began by spelling out in no uncertain terms about the sins of St. Mary Magdalene before she met our Lord. He went on and on about it, so as to give a clear picture of her previous life."(my bold)

I don’t know where you get the idea that I may have been referring to St. Mary Magdalene as having formerly been a prostitute or an adulteress. St. John Mary Vianney did not say this, nor did I in my post. That she led a sinful life of sensuality is what (if I recall correctly) is what St. John Mary Vianney said. There is no indication that she was a prostitute, and to be an adulteress, she would have to have been married, and I don’t recall that she was. I think that there is scriptural refrence to her having led a sinful life, outside of being possessed by the demons. I’ll look it up today and see. She, too, is one of my favorite saints and intercessors. In fact, I’ve thought have choosing her as my confirmation saint, if I’m ever confirmed. And isn’t she considered to be a penitent?

Sorry…I did not ‘get the idea’, nor did I say that you were referring to St Mary Magdalene as having formerly been a prostitute or an adulteress.

I was commenting on St John Marie Vianney and what everyone in the Church, from earliest times and the famous sermon also accusing her by Pope Gregory the Great, have wrongly attributed to her i.e. the sins of the flesh…and wrongly assuming she was not only a prostitute but also an adulteress

This is of considerable interest to any Catholic, being one of the most notable cases of mistaken identity and wrongful imputation of sin to any other Saint of the Church. In fact, if you google this subject, many non Catholics have speculated that it was a ‘smear campaign’ on the part of the male dominated Church to discredit and undermine this favored and powerful woman. Which is not true of the Church itself, but may very well have started in the early days by spiteful men who had a traditional and chauvanistic attitude to women.

She was one of the three most beloved by Jesus, stood faithfully at the foot of the cross during his Crucifixion and more than that… He showed Himself to her first after the Resurrection - considering all that, the real question is…how could this tremendous oversight have been allowed to continue right up until recently when the Vatican refuted this and changed the Gospel and prayers for her feast day in the Roman Missal?

 

[Denise1957]

Originally Posted by Denise1957 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
"One of my favorite saints, St. John Mary Vianney, used a similar approach, though in reverse. For example, when he wanted to address the issue of the wrongness of sins of the flesh to his parishioners, he first began by spelling out in no uncertain terms about the sins of St. Mary Magdalene before she met our Lord. He went on and on about it, so as to give a clear picture of her previous life."(my bold)

Sorry…I did not ‘get the idea’, nor did I say that you were referring to St Mary Magdalene as having formerly been a prostitute or an adulteress.

I was commenting on St John Marie Vianney and what everyone in the Church, from earliest times and the famous sermon also accusing her by Pope Gregory the Great, have wrongly attributed to her i.e. the sins of the flesh…and wrongly assuming she was not only a prostitute but also an adulteress

This is of considerable interest to any Catholic, being one of the most notable cases of mistaken identity and wrongful imputation of sin to any other Saint of the Church. In fact, if you google this subject, many non Catholics have speculated that it was a ‘smear campaign’ on the part of the male dominated Church to discredit and undermine this favored and powerful woman. Which is not true of the Church itself, but may very well have started in the early days by spiteful men who had a traditional and chauvanistic attitude to women.

She was one of the three most beloved by Jesus, stood faithfully at the foot of the cross during his Crucifixion and more than that… He showed Himself to her first after the Resurrection - considering all that, the real question is…how could this tremendous oversight have been allowed to continue right up until recently when the Vatican refuted this and changed the Gospel and prayers for her feast day in the Roman Missal?

I think you are over-reacting, Dee S. You are free to believe what you like. I’ll stick with what St. John Mary Vianney said. The point that he was trying to make is how a sinner can change through repentance, and the grace, love, and mercy of God. I’ll not be commenting on this further, because I don’t want to take the thread off-course.

 

[Dee_S]

Justin, why don’t you just put your trust and confidence in the Church (where it belongs) instead of in yourself and the SSPX? I don’t recall the SSPX getting a mandate from Heaven making them the authority of what is and is not Catholic.

:thumbsup:I agree. That mentality is indoctrinated into all who have attended SSPX chapels - I think what you are noticing here Lormar, is that some people have something of an overdose, that takes time to slowly work its way out of their systems once they leave.Sadly the ‘default’ to the SSPX’s so-called ‘authority’ and one’s own judgement takes some getting overuntil it is replaced by putting their trust and confidence in the Church that Christ founded, against which the gates of Hell will never prevail.

 

[Dee_S]

I think you are over-reacting, Dee S. You are free to believe what you like. I’ll stick with what St. John Mary Vianney said. The point that he was trying to make is how a sinner can change through repentance, and the grace, love, and mercy of God. I’ll not be commenting on this further, because I don’t want to take the thread off-course.

I don’t see what ‘over-reacting’ has to do with it? And I can’t agree that we are free to believe what we like, even error. My response was an attempt to de-bunk any misinformation about this very great woman and saint and to give other posters information they might also like to know. It was not intended to be personal, nor is it.

That the Vatican has implicitly rejected the reasoning of Pope Gregory (and those before and after who unwittingly perpetrated this error) and have added a new Gospel and prayers to the mass of her feastday is significant.

In 1969 the Vatican, during the papacy of Paul VI, without commenting on Pope Gregory’s reasoning,[17] implicitly rejected it by separating Luke’s sinful woman, Mary of Bethany, and Mary Magdala via the Roman Missal.[18]

Her name comes from the town of Magdala in Galilee, where she originated. Scripture introduces her as a woman “who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out” (Lk. 8:2).

That she still remains an outstanding penitent of the Church is not in question, because after the Ascencion of Our Lord this was the path she chose. What she was repenting from…is not known, nor is it acceptable to continue to portray her as having ‘sins of the flesh’.

 

[Dee_S]

Regarding what you stated above about some in the SSPX extending this to Tridentine Masses that are celebrated in the mainstream churches, I can tell you, as a former SSPXer, that two SSPX priests advised me against attending a diocesan-approved TLM. One SSPX priest told me (after I told him that I attended the local FSSP parish one weekday) that I shouldn’t go because the ordination of the FSSP priest may be of doubtful validity, and therefore the sacraments, such as Holy Eucharist, may not be validly consecrated.

The other SSPX priest contacted me after I left the SSPX and encouraged me to return to the SSPX chapel, saying that he worried that I would lose my faith if I attended the FSSP parish. I assured him that this would not happen. He was sincerely concerned for me, and was very charitable and kind about it. Now this does not mean that all SSPX priests would advise against attending a diocesan-approved (FSSP or otherwise) parish, but I think it may indicate a general trend. I think that there are other former SSPX adherents here on the forum who have had a similar experience.

:thumbsup:Hear, hear. Thanks Denise, very well said.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Justin, why don’t you just put your trust and confidence in the Church (where it belongs) instead of in yourself and the SSPX? I don’t recall the SSPX getting a mandate from Heaven making them the authority of what is and is not Catholic.

Eh? I can imagine certain personages in the SSPX chucking darts at my photo on the wall after reading some of my posts!

I have not had anything to do with the SSPX for over ten years. I go to a NOM. Right now I am a Catholic in perfectly good standing in my archdiocese and most certainly put my trust and confidence in the Church. Reread my posts and you’ll see.

Confidence in myself? No, I don’t think so. I’ve had to unlearn so much of what I took for granted as being true and defended as such that now I make the very necessary distinction between what the Church actually teaches and what people say she does. I don’t have an agenda - I’m looking at the arguments of both sides (i.e. SSPX and opponents of SSPX) and trying to see where the truth lies. If I’m proven wrong in anything I’ll be the first to admit it.

And now that’s enough 'I’s.

 

[Lormar]

I’m looking at the arguments of both sides (i.e. SSPX and opponents of SSPX) and trying to see where the truth lies. If I’m proven wrong in anything I’ll be the first to admit it.

I see.