SSPX denies validity and licitness of NO?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Quis_UtDeus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“runningdude said:
No, because the fraternity is organized outside of Canon Law.

(The Pope would also not be able to remove the Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus for the same reason).

2de720e12b3295054b06df5bcc7057d83ef713a5.png
commenter:
Click to expand...

The K of C operates under Canon Law. They are not outside it.
The Knights of Columbus operate in obedience to the pope on the international level; not just in theory, they are an approved international Catholic organization. They must meet certain criteria. They could be disqualified. If the pope requested Mr. Anderson resign, and he did not, the directors would remove him.

The Chaplains, from Archbishop Lori on down, all have to be in union with the pope and their bishop ordinary. Council chaplains are either appointed, or at least approved by the bishop ordinary. Canon Law also applies, for lay organizations, if a council is chartered by a parish, or Catholic institutions.

If a bishop ordinary disapproved of the K of C coming into his diocese, and if it were not part of a Eastern Catholic diocese or Ordinariate, no council would set up shop in that diocese. The K of C operates very much within Canon Law.
 
otjm said:
I would simply distance myself as far as possible from any such conversation.

Neither you, nor I , nor the most knowledgeable of theologians, nor the Pope himself is going to change that person’s mind.

It has been a never ending source of amazement that these folks know so little scripture that they appear to have missed, or forgotten that Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. 2,147 bishops of the world approved of Sacrosanctum Concilium, the document from Vatican 2 which started the changes in liturgy. 4 voted against it. The Holy Spirit has not abandoned the Church; and 5 bishops (one now deceased) are not the remnant leaders of the one true Church.

Pray for this person’s soul, and move on.
Click to expand...
I agree the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church and since the Church mandated TLM in Council of Trent and forbid any changes to liturgy, then if you’re right that “changes” have been made to liturgy then we do need to pray.

Personally, I don’t think “changes” were made to liturgy, Vatican 2 merely made NO optional thus didn’t “change” the liturgy.
 
Last edited:
The liturgy - that is, the rules, the rubrics, are not doctrine. There have been any number of challenges from people who do not understand the language used in various councils, claiming that a declaration as you noted in the Council of Trent were universal and for all times. They weren’t; even a short historical study of the liturgy since Trent would show that various popes have made various changes and additions (and any addition is a change).

I am not going to get into an argument over how much different the changes to the Extraordinary for the Ordinary form is; and even assuming for the moment that the majority of bishops who voted in favor of Sacrosanctum Concilium intended for the Roman rite to have only one form of the Mass, that would not be a violation of Trent.

In any number of circumstances, various popes have made the statement that whet they have decided, no one can change; and time and time again those matters have been changed by subsequent popes, as the changes are not dogmatic/doctrinal, but rather disciplinary/legislative.
 
Strangely is right, albeit a bit of an understatement.

REading some of their comments is a bit akin to reading Alice in Wonderland.
 
Agreed. The sad part is of those who, being part of the SSPX, have broken off from them into even more bizarre permutations.
 
otjm said:
Agreed. The sad part is of those who, being part of the SSPX, have broken off from them into even more bizarre permutations.
Click to expand...
Some of those parts would say They have not broken off at all, that they are still genuine SSPX. Some are still technically part of the organization, though in disagreement, some others would say they were wrongfully expelled.

Since sspx isn’t under Canon law, which has detailed procedures for expulsions, it’s unclear if any of their expulsions are valid or licit in the eyes of the Church. They might, or might not, all still be “members”.
 
Last edited:
Aquinas11 said:
since the Church mandated TLM in Council of Trent
Click to expand...
Except the very Mass the SSPX celebrates is not the same as the Mass promulgated after Trent. The SSPV has a bone to pick with the SSPX for that very reason. So then how much is enough? Where’s that codified? Why is it that Trent is held up as the Council that turned liturgy into dogma but somehow Vatican II is seen as optional?
 
Last edited:
I’m no expert, but a legislative body can override its previous ordinances. The Pope is Supreme legislator in the Church and he can override previous Popes on some but maybe not all matters. He just can’t override Jesus.

Clear as mud.

Thanks.
 
commenter said:
If the pope requested Mr. Anderson resign, and he did not, the directors would remove him.
Click to expand...
But the pope still lacks the authority to directly remove him. He can request a resignation, but he would have to freely choose to give it. If he did not, he still would not be directly removed by the Pope. It would be left to the board of directors, those with the authority to remove him. They would, presumably, remove him in obedience to the Pope.
 
So then how much is enough? Where’s that codified?
Click to expand...
In the phrase codifying a change to liturgy “only in the vernacular”

No subjectivity there. Either the change requires liturgy only in vernacular or it doesn’t.

I shouldn’t said it “mandated TLM” as much as “outlawed mandating vernacular” so would make that correction.
 
Last edited:
The Magisterium holds that the NO is licit and valid. Who cares what the rebels think?
 
Aquinas11 said:
Either the change requires liturgy only in vernacular or it doesn’t.

I shouldn’t said it “mandated TLM” as much as “outlawed mandating vernacular” so would make that correction.
Click to expand...
So the Eastern Catholics have illicit Masses then? The Anglican Ordinariate too? The Bible can be translated in vernacular, but the Mass can’t? Don’t get me wrong, I’d prefer the Mass in Latin. But saying the Church can’t because of Trent is, quite frankly, silly. It elevates Latin to the level of dogma.
 
The Bible can be translated in vernacular, but the Mass can’t?
Click to expand...
Aquinas11 said:
Either the change requires liturgy only in vernacular or it doesn’t.
Click to expand...
It’s not that Mass “can’t” be changed to vernacular it’s that it cant be changed “only” to vernacular
 
Last edited:
Aquinas11 said:
It’s not that Mass “can’t” be changed to vernacular it’s that it cant be changed “only” to vernacular
Click to expand...
The OF isn’t only in vernacular. I’ve been to OF Masses done entirely in Latin. While I’ve been to Masses that have been entirely in vernacular, it’s my understanding that it ought not to be the case. Does this justify outright rebellion though? No.
 
Fauken said:
The OF isn’t only in vernacular. I’ve been to OF Masses done entirely in Latin. While I’ve been to Masses that have been entirely in vernacular, it’s my understanding that it ought not to be the case. Does this justify outright rebellion though? No.
Click to expand...
I never said OF is only in vernacular or violates Trent. To contrary I said there is no issue since vernacular is optional.
Aquinas11 said:
Personally, I don’t think “changes” were made to liturgy, Vatican 2 merely made NO optional thus didn’t “change” the liturgy.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
This is all very interesting to see unfold and I thank you all for your (name removed by moderator)ut. This is rather a complicated issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top