SSPX mass OK?

[NeelyAnn]

And as to not needing fixing, even Archbishop Lafebvre agreed with the vast majority of the bishops during Vatican 2 that there were needed changes.

"The reform of the liturgy in the spirit of the liturgical movement was not a priority for the majority of the fathers, and for many not even a consideration. Thus, for example, in his outline of themes after the beginning of the Council, Cardinal Montini – who as Paul VI would be the real pope of the Council – said quite clearly that he did not see the reform of the liturgy as a substantial task in the Council. The liturgy and its reform had, since the end of World War I, become a pressing question only in France and Germany, and indeed above all from the perspective of the purest possible restoration of the ancient Roman liturgy, to which belonged the active involvement of the people in the liturgical event. These two countries, which at that time enjoyed theological leadership in the Church (and we must of course add Belgium and the Netherlands) had during the preparation phase succeeded in putting through a schema on the Sacred Liturgy, which quite naturally found its place in the general theme of the church.

The fact that this text became the first subject of the Council’s discussions really had nothing to do with the majority of the Fathers having an intense interest in the liturgical question. Quite simply, no great disagreements were expected in this area, and the undertaking was viewed as a kind of practical exercise to learn and test the method of conciliar work. It would not have occurred to any of the Fathers to see in this text a “revolution” signifying the “end of the Middle Ages,” as some theologians felt they should interpret it subsequently. The work was seen as a continuation of the reforms introduced by Pius X and carried on carefully but resolutely by Pius XII. General expressions such as “the liturgical books should be revised as soon as possible” (no. 25) were understood in this sense: as the uninterrupted continuation of that development which had always been there and which, since Pope Pius X and Pius XII, had received a definite profile from the rediscovery of the classical Roman liturgical traditions, which was, of course, to overcome certain tendencies of Baroque liturgy and nineteenth-century devotional piety and to promote a new humble and sober centering of the authentic mystery of Christ’s presence in His Church.

In this context it is not surprising that the “model Mass” now proposed, which was supposed to (and in fact did) take the place of the traditional Ordo Missae, was in 1967 rejected by the majority of the Fathers who had been called together to a special synod on the matter. Some publications now tell us that some liturgist (or perhaps many?) who were working as advisers had had more far-reaching intentions from the outset. Their wishes would surely not have received the approval of the Fathers." (Milestones)

 

[otjm]

"The reform of the liturgy in the spirit of the liturgical movement was not a priority for the majority of the fathers, and for many not even a consideration. Thus, for example, in his outline of themes after the beginning of the Council, Cardinal Montini – who as Paul VI would be the real pope of the Council – said quite clearly that he did not see the reform of the liturgy as a substantial task in the Council. The liturgy and its reform had, since the end of World War I, become a pressing question only in France and Germany, and indeed above all from the perspective of the purest possible restoration of the ancient Roman liturgy, to which belonged the active involvement of the people in the liturgical event. These two countries, which at that time enjoyed theological leadership in the Church (and we must of course add Belgium and the Netherlands) had during the preparation phase succeeded in putting through a schema on the Sacred Liturgy, which quite naturally found its place in the general theme of the church.

The fact that this text became the first subject of the Council’s discussions really had nothing to do with the majority of the Fathers having an intense interest in the liturgical question. Quite simply, no great disagreements were expected in this area, and the undertaking was viewed as a kind of practical exercise to learn and test the method of conciliar work. It would not have occurred to any of the Fathers to see in this text a “revolution” signifying the “end of the Middle Ages,” as some theologians felt they should interpret it subsequently. The work was seen as a continuation of the reforms introduced by Pius X and carried on carefully but resolutely by Pius XII. General expressions such as “the liturgical books should be revised as soon as possible” (no. 25) were understood in this sense: as the uninterrupted continuation of that development which had always been there and which, since Pope Pius X and Pius XII, had received a definite profile from the rediscovery of the classical Roman liturgical traditions, which was, of course, to overcome certain tendencies of Baroque liturgy and nineteenth-century devotional piety and to promote a new humble and sober centering of the authentic mystery of Christ’s presence in His Church.

In this context it is not surprising that the “model Mass” now proposed, which was supposed to (and in fact did) take the place of the traditional Ordo Missae, was in 1967 rejected by the majority of the Fathers who had been called together to a special synod on the matter. Some publications now tell us that some liturgist (or perhaps many?) who were working as advisers had had more far-reaching intentions from the outset. Their wishes would surely not have received the approval of the Fathers." (Milestones)

all of which is not particularly relevant to my comment. Benedict himself indicated some possible changes to the EF in his accompanying letter. And his comments reflect his long standing comments that much of the Vtican 2 documents have not been implemented as the Council intended. A commentary which intends to show that the OF was not what was intended by the Council is not responsive to what was actually intended.

The conversation was not about the OF, or whether or not the OF reflected the intent and wishes of the majority of bishops at Vatican 2 - we can all agree it didn’t. My comment was directed to the other poster’s comment that5 they hoped the EF would not change. Paying attention to what Rome says would indicate that eventually we would see some changes.

 

[NeelyAnn]

all of which is not particularly relevant to my comment. Benedict himself indicated some possible changes to the EF in his accompanying letter. And his comments reflect his long standing comments that much of the Vtican 2 documents have not been implemented as the Council intended. A commentary which intends to show that the OF was not what was intended by the Council is not responsive to what was actually intended.

Actually, the comment from Cardinal Ratzinger shows that there was not much of a desire to reform the liturgy at all - which you indicated there was. In addition, the end result, what we have today in the OF, was certainly not desired.

 

[otjm]

Actually, the comment from Cardinal Ratzinger shows that there was not much of a desire to reform the liturgy at all - which you indicated there was. In addition, the end result, what we have today in the OF, was certainly not desired.

Well, the documents speak for themselves, and the bishops did intend some changes. We can all agree the OF did not reflect their desires or intent. As to “not much desire”, there certainly was enough desire that it made its way into the V 2 documents, and the EF does not reflect what changes they may have wished. If you comment about desire is that there really will not be any changes to the Ef, I would suggest that you are wishing. I do not expect that the changes would be anywhere near as radical as the OF, but I would, for example, expect that eventually we would see more readings in the Liturgy of the Word as seen in the OF.

 

[NeelyAnn]

Well, the documents speak for themselves, and the bishops did intend some changes. We can all agree the OF did not reflect their desires or intent. As to “not much desire”, there certainly was enough desire that it made its way into the V 2 documents, and the EF does not reflect what changes they may have wished. If you comment about desire is that there really will not be any changes to the Ef, I would suggest that you are wishing. I do not expect that the changes would be anywhere near as radical as the OF, but I would, for example, expect that eventually we would see more readings in the Liturgy of the Word as seen in the OF.

Read back through Cardinal Ratzinger’s quote again. Cardinal Ratzinger specifically said the Fathers did not have much interest in reforming the liturgy at that time. It was France and Germany, and we all know the state they have been in for quite sometime, who took on this initiative.

This has nothing to do with possible changes being made in the EF, as it is being called now. That may happen, although a doubt there will be many changes and I doubt it is a focus at this time. All of the interviews coming out on the liturgy, and there have been a lot lately, all deal with explaining the problems with the OF and reforming it to bring it inline with tradition. They have their hands full at this time.

 

[Layman]

Hopefully the Hierarchy will wait another 400 years before attempting such a radical project again.

Personally, I’m anguished at being the subject of such an experiment; for my own sake and for my neighbours in Ireland who are fairly casual about their faith and have no solemn Mass or forthright, traditional preaching to teach them otherwise.

I think the Church is trying to follow the people rather than lead them to God and I’d say that is fatal if your quest is for holiness.

 

[pnewton]

Actually, the comment from Cardinal Ratzinger…

In keeping with the forum rules, can you please reference and link this quote. Also, while I am mentioning those rules, lengthy passages are not to be quoted. Only the pertinent parts and a link given to the whole thing. This is to keep CAF* and the posters* on the honest side of copyright laws.

Thank you.

 

[otjm]

In keeping with the forum rules, can you please reference and link this quote. Also, while I am mentioning those rules, lengthy passages are not to be quoted. Only the pertinent parts and a link given to the whole thing. This is to keep CAF* and the posters* on the honest side of copyright laws.

Thank you.

I was assuming that she quoted from Milestones: Memoirs from 1927 - 1977.

 

[NeelyAnn]

In keeping with the forum rules, can you please reference and link this quote. Also, while I am mentioning those rules, lengthy passages are not to be quoted. Only the pertinent parts and a link given to the whole thing. This is to keep CAF* and the posters* on the honest side of copyright laws.

Thank you.

Actually, the rule says: Avoid quoting from copyrighted works. Instead, paraphrase what is said and provide a link. If you do quote, limit your quotes to one to three paragraphs.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=127816

It says ‘if’ I quote, to limit the quote to 1-3 paragraphs. I did that. I also did reference where the material came from. It came from Milestones. See the end of the quote.

The quote can be found most anywhere online. I found it here.

But you can also find it here.

 

[numealinesimpet]

In keeping with the forum rules, can you please reference and link this quote. Also, while I am mentioning those rules, lengthy passages are not to be quoted. Only the pertinent parts and a link given to the whole thing. This is to keep CAF* and the posters* on the honest side of copyright laws.

Thank you.

Fair enough, pnewton, but I thought the Rule of Thumb was 3 paragraphs, which has been followed here?

 

[pnewton]

I also did reference where the material came from. It came from Milestones.

Thank you. I did not know what that meant.

It is a good link. I look forward to reading it.

 

[otjm]

Well, since we seem to be quoting Cardinal Ratzinger, perhaps he has revealed his desire. At least in 2003 he desired that eventually, there would be one form of the Mass:

“The Roman rite of the future should be a single rite, celebrated in Latin or in the vernacular, but standing completely in the tradition of the rite that has been handed down. It could take up some new elements which have proven themselves, like new feasts, some new prefaces in the Mass, an expanded lectionary – more choice than earlier, but not too much, – an “oratio fidelium”, i.e., a fixed litany of intercessions following the Oremus before the offertory where it had its place earlier.”

cf a letter to Dr. Heinz-Lothar Barth, as translated and quoted in Fr. Z’s blog of 9 February 2008.

There does not seem to be a vast or particularly fast move to that goal, as I would expect that he would not move precipitously, given his comments on how fractious the move to the OF was. But it is clear from this comment that he forsees a Mass somewhat, and certainly not radically so, different from the EF currently.

And I would expect that if future popes take up the liturgical process, that it will eventually occur, but probably not in my lifetime. Change most likely will come gradually.

It helps to keep perspective. The move to say the EF is not advancing rapidly throughout the world; one would think that in part this would be due to bishops’ reluctance, and the lack of priests trained in saying the EF. Even Ratzinger then said that many people simply were not ready or interested in the EF, which is another part of the slowness of the EF to spread. And, for one site that tracks the number of EF Masses said regularly world wide, it appears to be about one in 250; not exactly overwhelming. Slowly, gradually, we will approach Benedict’s (then, Ratzinger’s) vision if the next pope(s) also have the same vision. And if they differ, the timing will go more slowly.

 

[ProVobis]

There does not seem to be a vast or particularly fast move to that goal, as I would expect that he would not move precipitously, given his comments on how fractious the move to the OF was. But it is clear from this comment that he forsees a Mass somewhat, and certainly not radically so, different from the EF currently.

We don’t know what the changes will be but I think there’s a temptation to think whatever changes that will come will be deletions of text from the Mass as there were in the 60’s. I think the EP1 or Canon will be untouched, but let’s think of the possibilities of ADDING to the text as well. Perhaps a second Epistle or increased number of verses between the Epistle and Gospel, allowing more dialogue whether in Latin or vernacular. Or an expansion of feast days. Your thoughts?

 

[otjm]

We don’t know what the changes will be but I think there’s a temptation to think whatever changes that will come will be deletions of text from the Mass as there were in the 60’s. I think the EP1 or Canon will be untouched, but let’s think of the possibilities of ADDING to the text as well. Perhaps a second Epistle or increased number of verses between the Epistle and Gospel, allowing more dialogue whether in Latin or vernacular. Or an expansion of feast days. Your thoughts?

I would expect to see the addition of the Old Testament readings, as we have in the OF. And it certainly would not surprise me to see one or more Canon’s added. I would expect to see the vernacular used, althought to what extent is anyone’s guess.

I think, however, we will see more work on the OF first.

 

[ProVobis]

I think, however, we will see more work on the OF first.

I think we’re seeing more of a push for Latin in all OF, at least more Latinized vernacular, if there is such a thing. I also see more of an emphasis on EP1 and expanded readings. The handshake of peace may be moved, though I doubt if it will be removed. More prayer right before communion would be my wish.

 

[otjm]

I think we’re seeing more of a push for Latin in all OF, at least more Latinized vernacular, if there is such a thing. I also see more of an emphasis on EP1 and expanded readings. The handshake of peace may be moved, though I doubt if it will be removed. More prayer right before communion would be my wish.

I ahve seen a little bit of use of Latin in the OF - Gloria, Sanctus, but out here it is a bit scarce. I attend Mass periodically at the local Trappist abbey; lots of incense, a real sense of reverence, a slower pace (Mass lasts about an hour, and there are not that many laity present), but not a bit of Latin.

 

[numealinesimpet]

We don’t know what the changes will be but I think there’s a temptation to think whatever changes that will come will be deletions of text from the Mass as there were in the 60’s. I think the EP1 or Canon will be untouched, but let’s think of the possibilities of ADDING to the text as well. Perhaps a second Epistle or increased number of verses between the Epistle and Gospel, allowing more dialogue whether in Latin or vernacular. Or an expansion of feast days. Your thoughts?

“Originally” there were three readings. That is why we have two antiphons now after the Epistle, set in different psalm tones (we have both a Gradual (sung while the Missal was being solemnly carried up the steps – grada – ) and the Alleluia. I think the Church eliminated the First Reading because people could not remember them all, and the Mass was taking too long. “Exit Surveys” of people coming out of the OF on “What were the topics of the three Readings?” have not been encouraging…

The Introit was originally sung as the celebrant + procession entered the church, and the whole psalm, or much of it, was sung. The Tridentine Revision cut it down to just one verse. This is unfortunate, because often the “theme” of the Mass is expressed, in the Introit, in a later verse that is no longer sung. N.B. that the 1962 Revision allows, as an option, the rest of the psalm to be included.

The Offertory Antiphon was more extensive, with the antiphon repeated through the psalm in the manner of the Divine Office (EF). I think the same is true for the communion antiphon. Once again, the 1962 Revision (adopted by the SSPX) allows them to be restored.

Originally, every Mass had its “Proper” Preface. This was summarily reduced to about a dozen in the 1570 “Tridentine” Default Liturgy. In the 1962 Missal four more are added ‘as libitum’ (at the discretion of the celebrant), including one for Advent. I think there is a favourable attitude toward restoring many of the old ones, or writing new as required.

In the pre-Tridentine Canon, at the Mementoes (now kept as an option in the OF Eucharistic Prayer One), the list was of saints from the particular diocese or Religious Community. When the Tridentine Missal was imposed, being basically a pruned version of the Missal used in Rome at the time, it was the list of Roman saints and martyrs that was selected. this could conceivably be expanded again to the diocesan or Religious community list.

None of the above, as far as I know, would worry the SSPX, if it was done authoritatively and no unauthorised additions or deletions were tolerated.

 

[NeelyAnn]

From Fr. Z:

QUAERITUR: Mass obligation and SSPX chapels

From a reader:

Does a Mass heard in a SSPX chapel fulfill the Sunday Mass obligation?

Perhaps you have answered this question before. If so, I missed it.

**The 1983 Code of Canon Law, can. 1248 says:

1. “The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day.”

The Holy See has said repeatedly that attending Masses of the SSPX fulfills the obligation according to can 1248.**

However, I will add that – while this strictly fulfills your obligation, I do not recommend that this be your normal way of fulfilling your obligation. The SSPX is not yet in manifest unity with the Roman Pontiff. The SSPX priests are suspended and have no permission from the Church to administer the sacraments. It can happen that people who frequent their chapels can undermine their union with the local bishop and the Vicar of Christ.

I am fully aware that in many cases what is going on at your local normal parish may seem like the childish or pagan rites of a strange cult, and that what goes on at the SSPX chapel seems entirely reasonable Catholic, our sense of ecclesial unity remains important. With very few exceptions the SSPX priests I have met have been fine men and zealous, while many liberal/heterodox priests in good standing I have known have been ignorant, arrogant, and petty.

This should spur us to earnest and frequent prayer for the success of the theological talks going on between the Holy See and SSPX and be ready to extend a welcoming hand…. especially in this Week of Christian Unity.

 

[John1360]

You’ll know them by their fruits. Are they dangerous? - NO

Go by your own heart it won’t steer you wrong. All this in- fighting must trouble Jesus greatly.

 

[Geremia]

Now that the ex-communications have been lifted, can a catholic attend a SSPX church?

No, the SSPX is currently still schismatic.

Can you receive the Sacraments there? (get confirmed, married, convert)

Remember, they are not a part of the Catholic Church; they are not in communion with the Holy See. It would be equivalent to attending a Protestant church.

To find traditional Latin masses in the Catholic Church, visit the Ecclesia Dei directory.