SSPX - I dont get it

[dumspirospero]

The NO can be said in Latin at any time by any Priest at his Parish (no permission needed)…in order for a TLM to be said, and indult must be granted by the Bishop of your Diocese. The Pope has given the Bishops the approval to grant Indults in their Diocese at any time and has encourage such…but some Bishops do not grant Indults for some reason. The fastest way to get an Indult in these Parishes is for an SSPX Church to come in…then the local Bishop will grant an Indult TLM to keep the faithful who have a preference for the TLM from leaving The Church. At least I would think they would.

gelsbern:

Ask your priest what he would need to do to be able to say the Mass in Latin. I guarantee the first thing out of his mouth would be “We need to get permission” (which is indult)

 

[rcn]

dumspirospero:

The NO can be said in Latin at any time by any Priest at his Parish (no permission needed)

It’s not that simple. Here are the thoughts of Card. Arinze (head of the Congregration of Worship, or something like that), in an interview with EWTN broadcast last month:

Q: The Canons allow a priest to celebrate Mass either in the Latin or the vernacular, the language of his land. [Redemptionis Sacramentum] seems to imply that he needs the permisson of his bishop to say Mass in the Latin. Am I interpreting that correctly?

A: No, you are not interpreting that correctly. … Latin is the language of the Church. But, the vernacular has been admitted by Vatican II for very good reasons. And the Church does not regret having brought in the people’s language. There is no regret. A priest is always free to celebrate Mass in Latin, except when the bishop or the pastor of the church has arranged that a Mass should be in the local language. Suppose a parish … has always had a 10:00 Mass for the people in English. And here comes a priest who says "I like Latin. I am going to say it in Latin the whole way through. " [RS] says “No, you cannot do that. You have to respect the tradition there.” … Suppose there were 6 masses in a church on Sunday. It would be beautiful to have at least one of them in Latin, to offer people a choice. And if the priest is saying a mass privately, he can say it in Latin - the whole lot - if he wishes.

Q: What if it were on Saturday, or a weekday, when it was not part of the obligation. Do you think there should be more flexibility in that case? [By “flexibility” here, I think he means “the ability to say Mass in Latin without consideration for the people” - a reaction to the previous response.]

A: There should be flexibility. But the choice of the priest should not be the final criteria. What is good for the congregation coming to that mass, should be the final criteria. For instance, I love Latin. But, if I see that the group of people there cannot respond in Latin, they would not follow most of the rites. I would not push my desire for Latin against what would seem better for the people. So, you see the “flexibility” necessary.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

A local priest tried adding a second daily mass in Latin one day a week but was apparently forced to stop and wasn’t allowed to say why, though the Latin mass of that day was immediately the most popular and even drew in folks who did not regularily come to daily mass. However, the conclusion is easy enough to draw, as the local ordinary allows only one indult TLM and three NO masses on Sunday, and all within a ~15 mile radius in the dead center of the diocese (and interestingly as far from major thoroughfares as possible given the distribution of parishes in that part of the diocese) and relatively early in the morning. I’ve heard - from choir members closer the the middle of the diocese - that he instructs the choirs of all the parishes he visits to not use Latin Mass parts. However, its been over 10 years since he visited a parish within a 30 minute drive so I’ve got very little personal eperience of how he says mass.

The indult and at least one of the Latin NO masses were added only after he unwittingly sold a fully equipped (Including altar and statuary) but shuttered parish complex (with school, large rectory, etc) to “investors” that ended up being a front for the SSPX. It ends up an indult in another diocese - that I can get to by crossing the corner of yet another diocese - is the closest licit Latin mass to my location (~70 minute drive).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Ray_Scheel:

A local priest tried adding a second daily mass in Latin one day a week but was apparently forced to stop and wasn’t allowed to say why, though the Latin mass of that day was immediately the most popular and even drew in folks who did not regularily come to daily mass.

Why? Instead of the conclustion you say is “easy enough to draw” I point you to the Code of Canon Law.

Can. 905 §1 Apart from those cases in which the law allows him to celebrate or concelebrate the Eucharist a number of times on the same day, a priest may not celebrate more than once a day.

---

§2 If there is a scarcity of priests, the local Ordinary may for a good reason allow priests to celebrate twice in one day or even, if pastoral need requires it, three times on Sundays or holydays of obligation.

Now, as you can see, a priest may not celebrate more than once a day unless the Bishop sees a good reason.

Now rather than assign motives to the Bishop, as you seem to want to do. I leave it at that.

 

[bear06]

Ray_Scheel:

Kind of like how the question of where idea of the claimed limitations on the authority of the Ecclesia Dei comission got abandoned when as the authority of the Curia - even when inconvenient to those painting with a broad brush - could no longer be denied, yet still kept the blinders on as to what the findings of that comission were? Or whether the excommunication of St. Athanasius was valid at the time or not?

No man, not even the pope, can read the heart of another, and a consistent finding of those the pope has appointed to deal with the SSPX is a lack of schismatic intent or heretical teaching. That is significant when the canons the pope cited to announce they had excommunicated themselves required an assumption of schismatic intent.

The SSPX has problems aplenty, but insisting on oversimplifying their status on the negative end is conterproductive. Speaking from experience, when the anti-SSPX apologists hinge thier arguments on a position that puts them at odds even with the current position of the Curia, it gets real tempting to start ignoring the legitimate criticisms regarding lack of jurisdiction, etc. I’m sure folks mean well by trying to discourage any consideration of the SSPX, but the consistent lack of charity from the hard core anti-SSPX crowd is a real turn off to those trying to sort out the details for the first time.

I’m having trouble with your first paragraph. Could you re-write it again? After that though, I refer you to Pastor Aeternus. You can go on an on saying it’s not clear whether or not SSPX is considered schismatic and some members are excommunicated but then you’d also be rejecting Pastor Aeternus. Conjecture all you like but you, the Remnant, high ranking cardinals, etc., are not the authority on the issue.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I’ll try a simple correcting first, and edit my original post to match:
“when as the authority of the Curia”
should be
“when the authority of the Curia”

bear06:

Conjecture all you like but … high ranking cardinals, etc., are not the authority on the issue.

~ Again, I’m not seeing how this attidute can be rectified with Christus Dominus. The Curia members do speak in the name of the pope regarding thier assigned duties. I don’t see how Pastor Aeternus restricts the pope from that privledge of delegation, especially since the provided quote from Christus Dominus is what the Vatican website itself uses to summarize the authority of the Curia. I may be misreading things, but that assignment of authority isn’t just conjecture.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

ByzCath:

Now rather than assign motives to the Bishop, as you seem to want to do. I leave it at that.

I guess I forgot to mention the priest involved also indicated he was not able to comment on why he could not offer just a single daily mass in Latin one day a week, and I noticed a substantial reduction in his use of Latin for simpler mass parts said just by him at the same point in time, though he’s slowly building those back up again in frequency. The number of coincidences defy explanation through other motives, especially when combined with the explicit instructions to refrain from the use of Latin at masses the Bishop presides at, and the reports of a similarly tight rationing of the availability of Latin liturgies through the country at large.

 

[TNT]

bear06:

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh!!! How do you all get sucked into these lame conversations?! … goes against Pastor Aeternus in every sense of the word. Now T is going to tell you that it’s the only document I believe in to try and shift the focus from the fact that it is completely ignored by rad-Trads…

It’s the only document you believe in!
You’re such a prophet! ess
T
However, this is what I posted on;
**For the SSPXers: Men mess up, the Holy Spirit NEVER does!!
Thread
** Now, here’s my last word on SSPX:

1. They are in Schism and consequently excommunicated. This is a Papal decision to which there is NO appeal except mercy.
2. The reigning Pope is not judged by any canon Law. No where in Church history. Period.
3. I love the SSPX as people, as Tradionalists, as lovers of God and superior teachers of the Apostolic Faith.
4. BUT their Masses do NOT meet the Sunday Obligation.
5. Is the pope’s decree just? One may cry UNJUST and not be outside the Church or in sin. NO decree of this nature is INFALLIBLY just.
6. Was it a terrible scandal to excommunicate a traditional rebel bishop and raise hundreds of rotting souls of modernist rebels to the episcopate or higher? One may say YES and not sin.
7. One may pray for the lifing of this excommunication just as many prayed and received the TLM back into the Church.
8. Until then the SSPX is in schism, and no canon law can be addressed to it. Even if it be outrageuosly unjust, it stands.
9. I hate the fact of #8 but just because I do, does not invalidate it.
   You cannot deny the Supreme Jurisdiction of the reigning Pope, and say “I am a Roman Catholic”. They are mutually exclusive. I too wish it were at times, otherwise. But, over a period of 2000yrs, it worked for the better, and it is the Almighty’s plan to have it so.

So, “it is completely ignored by rad-Trads.” is not the case

And of course it’s a 2-edged sword. For in PA it says:

For the Holy Spirit promised to the successors of Peter, not that they would unfold new doctrine which He revealed to them, but that, with His assistance, they would piously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith handed on through the Apostles.

Bye bye “Ecumenism” so vigorosly and frequently condemned as NOT being a “deposit of the Faith handed on” regardless of it’s preaching under the guise of “enrichment of the faith” (simply another name for “new revelation”).

Happy now?

 

[bear06]

So, “it is completely ignored by rad-Trads.” is not the case

Are you saying your a rad-Trad?

And of course it’s a 2-edged sword. For in PA it says:

For the Holy Spirit promised to the successors of Peter, not that they would unfold new doctrine which He revealed to them, but that, with His assistance, they would piously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith handed on through the Apostles.

You always highlight the same things. You also forgot to highlight the word “expound”. Could it be that you are missing one of the definitions of expound?

Bye bye “Ecumenism” so vigorosly and frequently condemned as NOT being a “deposit of the Faith handed on” regardless of it’s preaching under the guise of “enrichment of the faith” (simply another name for “new revelation”).

Once again, the Pope is not unfolding new doctrine, he is expounding with Divine assistance as PROMISED!

 

[bear06]

Ray_Scheel:

I’ll try a simple correcting first, and edit my original post to match:
“when as the authority of the Curia”
should be
“when the authority of the Curia”

~ Again, I’m not seeing how this attidute can be rectified with Christus Dominus. The Curia members do speak in the name of the pope regarding thier assigned duties. I don’t see how Pastor Aeternus restricts the pope from that privledge of delegation, especially since the provided quote from Christus Dominus is what the Vatican website itself uses to summarize the authority of the Curia. I may be misreading things, but that assignment of authority isn’t just conjecture.

I guess I’m still not understanding what you are saying in this paragraph.

Kind of like how the question of where idea of the claimed limitations on the authority of the Ecclesia Dei comission got abandoned when as the authority of the Curia - even when inconvenient to those painting with a broad brush - could no longer be denied, yet still kept the blinders on as to what the findings of that comission were? Or whether the excommunication of St. Athanasius was valid at the time or not?

What claims? And as for Athanasius, I’d read a little more about his case on something other than the rad-Trad sites! newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Not just “a” cardinal, but the head of the comittee created by the Ecclesia Dei comission to speak on the matter, in correspondence involved withteh continuing negotiation to bring the SSPX back intot hte fold.

Errrrr… if they are not in the fold, then they are in schism, no?

 

[ElephantMan]

Robert Bay’s new rules of the forum:

1. If you support any sort of view that is different than what the mods believe, you will be banned. Discussion is not open for different and new ideas. Even if Catholicism is making a mistake, we support tradition.
2. Everything the Catholic Church has ever done has been infallible. Therefore, there is no need for you to question anything about Catholicism, the Church is perfect. If the Church told you to kill someone, you should do it, no questions asked.
3. Any rude and ignorant comments to others stating “You are not a true Catholic if you voted for Obama” will be accepted and is encouraged.
4. God didn’t give you this conscience to use for yourself. You must substitute other peoples judgment for your own, and never question them, because their judgment is better.
5. If you child someday asks you if they should use a condom, you should tell them “No, let yourself get HIV instead.”
6. You must agree with everything Robert Bay believes or you’ll be banned.
   

        Robert Bay's new rules of the forum:

7. If you support any sort of view that is different than what the mods believe, you will be banned. Discussion is not open for different and new ideas. Even if Catholicism is making a mistake, we support tradition.
8. Everything the Catholic Church has ever done has been infallible. Therefore, there is no need for you to question anything about Catholicism, the Church is perfect. If the Church told you to kill someone, you should do it, no questions asked.
9. Any rude and ignorant comments to others stating “You are not a true Catholic if you voted for Obama” will be accepted and is encouraged.
10. God didn’t give you this conscience to use for yourself. You must substitute other peoples judgment for your own, and never question them, because their judgment is better.
11. If you child someday asks you if they should use a condom, you should tell them “No, let yourself get HIV instead.”
12. You must agree with everything Robert Bay believes or you’ll be banned.

Robert Bay’s new rules of the forum:

1. If you support any sort of view that is different than what the mods believe, you will be banned. Discussion is not open for different and new ideas. Even if Catholicism is making a mistake, we support tradition.
2. Everything the Catholic Church has ever done has been infallible. Therefore, there is no need for you to question anything about Catholicism, the Church is perfect. If the Church told you to kill someone, you should do it, no questions asked.
3. Any rude and ignorant comments to others stating “You are not a true Catholic if you voted for Obama” will be accepted and is encouraged.
4. God didn’t give you this conscience to use for yourself. You must substitute other peoples judgment for your own, and never question them, because their judgment is better.
5. If you child someday asks you if they should use a condom, you should tell them “No, let yourself get HIV instead.”
6. You must agree with everything Robert Bay believes or you’ll be banned.
   

        Robert Bay's new rules of the forum:

7. If you support any sort of view that is different than what the mods believe, you will be banned. Discussion is not open for different and new ideas. Even if Catholicism is making a mistake, we support tradition.
8. Everything the Catholic Church has ever done has been infallible. Therefore, there is no need for you to question anything about Catholicism, the Church is perfect. If the Church told you to kill someone, you should do it, no questions asked.
9. Any rude and ignorant comments to others stating “You are not a true Catholic if you voted for Obama” will be accepted and is encouraged.
10. God didn’t give you this conscience to use for yourself. You must substitute other peoples judgment for your own, and never question them, because their judgment is better.
11. If you child someday asks you if they should use a condom, you should tell them “No, let yourself get HIV instead.”
12. You must agree with everything Robert Bay believes or you’ll be banned.

Robert Bay’s new rules of the forum:

1. If you support any sort of view that is different than what the mods believe, you will be banned. Discussion is not open for different and new ideas. Even if Catholicism is making a mistake, we support tradition.
2. Everything the Catholic Church has ever done has been infallible. Therefore, there is no need for you to question anything about Catholicism, the Church is perfect. If the Church told you to kill someone, you should do it, no questions asked.
3. Any rude and ignorant comments to others stating “You are not a true Catholic if you voted for Obama” will be accepted and is encouraged.
4. God didn’t give you this conscience to use for yourself. You must substitute other peoples judgment for your own, and never question them, because their judgment is better.
5. If you child someday asks you if they should use a condom, you should tell them “No, let yourself get HIV instead.”
6. You must agree with everything Robert Bay believes or you’ll be banned.

 

[I_Believe]

Why bump a 3 year old thread EM ? Are your search settings such that older threads top the results list ?

I’ve noticed a lot of new members are bumping old threads.

Anyhow, welcome to CA however brief your stay

 

[I_Believe]

Anyhow, welcome to CA however brief your stay

That didn’t take long lol

 

[Arthur_of_Lancs]

You know, a thread like this is really as pointless as medieval theologians debating how many angels could dance on a pin, while wars and famine raged outside.

The Church has been on the back foot since 1789 - more and more it’s OK to be atheist, especially in Europe,where the Zeitgeist is, if not actively hostile, contemptuous of the Church’s teaching.

We Catholics must learn to pull together in the face of this Nothing that is speading through the world creating darkness in its wake. Catholicism is not a belief
in which (as the gently mocking British TV series Father Ted put it):“Everything that is not compulsory is forbidden.” The highest authority for a Catholic before God is not the Holy Father, or the Congregations of the Curia, but his own conscience.

Remember that there was a time when the Society of Jesus had to take refuge in Orthodox Russia, where the Pope’s writ did not run, to avoid suppression by the Holy See. Were those Jesuits schismatic? Isn’t the Church far richer today for their disobedience? Does that remind you of anything?

We peer through a glass darkly, we are fallible mortals: we cannot see the fullness of divine truth in this life. And so, in one of the buzz words of today, we should not rush to be “judgemental” towards the bishops and priests of the Society of St Pius X. Judgement is for God, not for us. We should pray for and support the Holy Father and Cardinal Castrillon in their efforts to achieve full reconciliation with them, and for Bishop Fellay too, similarly. It will take movement by both “sides.” As to the present Vatican formulaic response that their Masses and sacraments are “vaild but illicit,” for me, that reads like “chaste but louche”. Valid means valid.

Christian disunity is a great scandal: Our Lord founded one Church, not a plethora. Similarly, divisions within the apostolic Church are a scandal. But we have long, to coin a phrase, “respected diversity”: Benedictines, Dominicans, Fransiscans, Jesuits, Pallotines and countless other religious and secular communities have brought their own particular emphasis to the enrichment of the Catholic Faith, as have our Eastern rites brethren. Long may that continue. God forbid that the Church be reduced to a “one-size-fits-all” mediocre sameness. That is the Communist, not the Catholic, way.

Let us pray that all those who profess the Catholic Faith that comes to us from the Apostles, and who recognise the See of Peter, may be welcomed by all Catholics with open arms and open minds.

 

[I_Believe]

The thread was resurrected by someone angry at a moderator Arthur, and I wish I hadn’t posted, because the offending post was removed swiftly. If I hadn’t posted, when the offending post was removed, this would have fell back into the archives.

But I read your reply and agree with most of it. Much has changed since march '05 though.

 

[Arthur_of_Lancs]

Yes Credo, how silly of me - I didn’t read the year dates and didn’t read on beyond page 4- I kept thinking: “doesn’t anyone realise what happened on 21st January?” Thanks for your post.

Perhaps old posts could fall into an oubliet after 12 months? Mods to consider?

 

[Monica4316]

Come on people!

Enough of everyone bashing the SSPX. Archbishop Lefebvre was just PRESERVING the traditions and liturgy, mass and being obedient to the Roman Catholic Church (and the past Popes) - by doing what he had to do…

If it wasn’t for Archbishop Lefebvre, the Church would not have the Fraternity of St Peter (personal opinion it was directly set up to stop the faithful going to the SSPX) -

Anyway my point is:

How can Archbishop Lefebrve be excommunicated, labelled schismatic etc - for just doing what all priests in the catholic church had done for a great period of time…

SAY THE TRIDENTINE MASS!

It is the Church Heirarchy who have left the Roman Catholic Church of all time and all ages.

Sure I know that Archbishop disobeyed the Pope by continuing on with the consecrations of the Bishops - but he had no other choice. The Modernist Pope would not give him permission to consecrate the Bishops, because he wanted to modernise the church and bring it up to modern times…

which is forbidden and taught against by previous popes in history.

latin-mass-society.org/quoprim.htm

Disobedience is still disobedience, for whatever reason. And it’s always based on pride and it’s never from God. Only obedience is from God.

There’s no problem at all with them wanting to continue the TLM. The FSSP are doing that, but they’re obedient to the Holy Father.

 

[I_Believe]

Disobedience is still disobedience, for whatever reason. And it’s always based on pride and it’s never from God. Only obedience is from God.

There’s no problem at all with them wanting to continue the TLM. The FSSP are doing that, but they’re obedient to the Holy Father.

Hi Monica, tradcatmel hasn’t logged in for over 2 years. This thread is from 2005, and it was bumped to the top yesterday by someone who was angry with a moderator. The poster was banned and the post removed.

With the SP and the lifting of the excommunications, this thread is pretty much moot now.

God Bless