SSPX - I dont get it

[pnewton]

Jakub:

You & your compadres are playing dodge ball again, redirecting to the SSPX and Lefebvre and deflecting from the present day offenders and abusers, not calling for their excommunication etc.

I know that I have never called for anyones ex-communication, as that is inappropriate for a lay person. I have surely responded to the few SSPX recruiters here who have rotated through under various names.

Rest assured that should some fool-hardy members of a group like VOTF or some other reformers appear hear to misrepresent Catholicism I am sure they would find a similar welcome. For loyalty to the Holy See is what motivates me, whether it be on the Holy Father’s right to set discipline in the liturgy or forbid further theological discussion on women’s ordination.

I have no understanding of why Catholics of all people find obedience so hard.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

ByzCath:

Actually Latin is not a dead language.

There is an office in the Vatican where new words are created for the Latin Language. After all, Latin is found on the ATM’s in the Vatican.

Also this argument does not hold water when one looks at the Church as a whole, rather than just looking at the Latin Catholic Church and taking that as if it is the only one.

All the Byzantine Churches have used the vernacular for the Liturgy since the beginning.

I stand corrected. :tiphat:

By “dead” language, I meant that Latin is not the native language of any country or region on the planet. I would assume the native language of Vatican City is actually Italian, but I don’t know.

I remember reading a book by Michael Davies (RIP) several years ago. This was before he’d gone almost completely over to the other side. Anyway, he said a priest had taken a Missal published sometime in the late 1500’s and said a complete Traditional Latin Mass. I doubt seriously in the year 2570 a priest will be able to take an English language Missal published in 1970 and say a complete, understandable Mass.

That’s my only point. Living languages evolve. The Vatican may be creating new Latin words, but they aren’t changing the meaning of old Latin words.

And yes, I’m aware of the other rites within the Church. In fact, I’d love the opportunity to attend those churches but there don’t seem to be any in my area.

No offense intended.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Dr. Bombay:

I stand corrected. :tiphat:

By “dead” language, I meant that Latin is not the native language of any country or region on the planet. I would assume the native language of Vatican City is actually Italian, but I don’t know.

Interesting. Did a google search.

Here is something I found.

Language Facts

Take a look at #8.

8.The only country where Latin is the official language is Vatican City.

You can do such a search and see that this holds out.

I remember reading a book by Michael Davies (RIP) several years ago. This was before he’d gone almost completely over to the other side. Anyway, he said a priest had taken a Missal published sometime in the late 1500’s and said a complete Traditional Latin Mass. I doubt seriously in the year 2570 a priest will be able to take an English language Missal published in 1970 and say a complete, understandable Mass.

But you do not know this for sure. Anyways, the meaning of words do not change as much as you are leading people to believe here. Slang is one thing that that is not the main usage of language.

That’s my only point. Living languages evolve. The Vatican may be creating new Latin words, but they aren’t changing the meaning of old Latin words.

And yes, I’m aware of the other rites within the Church. In fact, I’d love the opportunity to attend those churches but there don’t seem to be any in my area.

No offense intended.

No offense taken, it just seems that a lot of people either forget or do not know that the vernacular has been in use in the Church since the beginning.

I would even go so far as to say that in the the first couple of centuries of the Church that the vernacualr was in use by the whole Church.

 

[TNT]

ByzCath:

Interesting.
I would even go so far as to say that in the the first couple of centuries of the Church that the vernacualr was in use by the whole Church.

So, finish the story say, from century 3.
"Then _____ happened and ___________ happened and Latin became the only official language, etc. in the western Church from then on "

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

TNT:

So, finish the story say, from century 3.
"Then _____ happened and ___________ happened and Latin became the only official language, etc. in the western Church from then on "

Close but wrong.

Even in the time of the Council of Trent, the Latin Church had granted Indults to celebrate the Mass in the vernacular in some places.

Also, when the western Church changed from Greek to Latin, it (that is Latin) was the vernacular.

 

[gelsbern]

ByzCath:

Close but wrong.

Even in the time of the Council of Trent, the Latin Church had granted Indults to celebrate the Mass in the vernacular in some places.

Also, when the western Church changed from Greek to Latin, it (that is Latin) was the vernacular.

It’s odd though, throughout the history of the church, an indult was required to use the vernacular, and now an indult is required to use the language of the church. hmmmmm

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

gelsbern:

It’s odd though, throughout the history of the church, an indult was required to use the vernacular, and now an indult is required to use the language of the church. hmmmmm

In the Latin Church yes.

Again, the vernacular was the norm in the Eastern Churches and at one time the vernacular was used in the Latin Church.

At one time Latin was the vernacular.

 

[gelsbern]

ByzCath:

In the Latin Church yes.

Again, the vernacular was the norm in the Eastern Churches and at one time the vernacular was used in the Latin Church.

At one time Latin was the vernacular.

Wasn’t Greek the norm in the eastern churches at one time?

 

[TNT]

ByzCath:

Close but wrong.

Even in the time of the Council of Trent, the Latin Church had granted Indults to celebrate the Mass in the vernacular in some places.

Also, when the western Church changed from Greek to Latin, it (that is Latin) was the vernacular.

So, the question was: When did the official language of the W Church become Latin? Wrong would indicate Never, right?
For example: When was the last Council or universal encyclical that was not originally promulgated in Latin?
I did not mention occasional indults to vernacular. Exceptions would only verify the rule.

 

[TNT]

ByzCath:

In the Latin Church yes.

Again, the vernacular was the norm in the Eastern Churches and at one time the vernacular was used in the Latin Church.

At one time Latin was the vernacular.

Do you mean in Germany, France, Spain, England, Ireland Portugal, Latin was the vernacular?
Or was the Mass said in Latin in these countries as opposed to their vernacular, as well as the official decrees of the Church?

 

[JakeW]

gelsbern:

It’s odd though, throughout the history of the church, an indult was required to use the vernacular, and now an indult is required to use the language of the church. hmmmmm

I’ve been thinking the exact same thing. :whacky:

 

[bear06]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh!!! How do you all get sucked into these lame conversations?! The topic always seems to change when some find themselves on the losing end.

Back to the original subject.

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…

They can be excommunicated and labeled schismatic because they are. They, and I might add your last paragraph, 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 just cracks me up that people are ignoring one of, if not, the foremost document on our duty to submit and to obey. Sure, they’ll quote from every other pre-Vatican II document but ignore the one on obedience and submission. It’s almost as if they think that PA contradicts other documents. How about this question? Can anyone show me where the SSPX actually follows Pastor Aeternus?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

bear06:

The topic always seems to change when some find themselves on the losing end.

Back to the original subject.

They can be excommunicated and labeled schismatic because they are.

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.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

TNT:

Do you mean in Germany, France, Spain, England, Ireland Portugal, Latin was the vernacular?
Or was the Mass said in Latin in these countries as opposed to their vernacular, as well as the official decrees of the Church?

At one time, the vernacular of the Roman Empire was Latin.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

gelsbern:

Wasn’t Greek the norm in the eastern churches at one time?

For the eastern churches that were in an area where Greek was spoken. It is still such in Greece.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

gelsbern:

It’s odd though, throughout the history of the church, an indult was required to use the vernacular, and now an indult is required to use the language of the church. hmmmmm

Took me a bit to notice this but you are wrong on this issue.

An indult is not required to say the Mass in Latin. An indult is required to say the Trad Latin Mass. That is a big difference.

 

[gelsbern]

ByzCath:

Took me a bit to notice this but you are wrong on this issue.

An indult is not required to say the Mass in Latin. An indult is required to say the Trad Latin Mass. That is a big difference.

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)

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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)

No it isn’t. An indult is something granted by the Vatican and the Holy Father.

Permission is something that a bishop may require but not all do.

And anyways, my priest would not say that to me, he would say, “what are you, crazy?” as our Divine Liturgy is in English with some Greek and Arabic as I attend a Melkite Greek Catholic (Byzantine) parish.

 

[gelsbern]

ByzCath:

No it isn’t. An indult is something granted by the Vatican and the Holy Father.

Permission is something that a bishop may require but not all do.

And anyways, my priest would not say that to me, he would say, “what are you, crazy?” as our Divine Liturgy is in English with some Greek and Arabic as I attend a Melkite Greek Catholic (Byzantine) parish.

You really need to quit comparing your situation to those of us in the Latin rite. If you were in a Latin Rite church and asked for the NO Mass to be said in Latin, if you didn’t get shunned by the priest he would tell you he would need permission. Which would be an indult given by the bishop. I mean we all know you are in the Byzantine rite, good for you, glad you enjoy it, as for us in the Latin rite there are issues.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

gelsbern:

You really need to quit comparing your situation to those of us in the Latin rite. If you were in a Latin Rite church and asked for the NO Mass to be said in Latin, if you didn’t get shunned by the priest he would tell you he would need permission. Which would be an indult given by the bishop. I mean we all know you are in the Byzantine rite, good for you, glad you enjoy it, as for us in the Latin rite there are issues.

Again, the permission issue is not universal. To make such a claim you need to provide proof.

I know of a couple of dioceses where this is not the case.

And I think comparing is a good thing. Otherwise some Latin Catholics get the idea that the Liturgy in the whole Church was in Latin at some point, which is not the truth. It wasn’t even in Latin within the whole Latin Church.

I think you need to stop making broad sweeping generalizations.