SSPX mass OK?

[ProVobis]

If you see the truth of the church’s canon law, you realize it is not “attack.”

Then it’s gossip.

But you don’t seem to get it. If the bishop tells your father he must be in church ten minutes before Mass starting time but he gets there nine minutes before, is this DISOBEDIENCE severely wrong that he gets excommunicated? After all, he’s late per bishop’s explicit instructions, is he not? My point is that the disobedience has to be broken down into components and reasonableness to the command, severity, and if there are mitigating circumstances, no? Certainly if someone dies during that one minute, he’s on the hook but otherwise in normal circumstances is the bishop really going to issue a severe reprimand and take your father off his healthcare plan? Not if they need deacons.

 

[numealinesimpet]

A cleric is called by their promises or vows to be obedient, even as Christ was obedient.

Provobis, go reread the Gospel story of the Wedding at Cana… Jesus did not want to perform the miracle, but in obedience to Mary, he did so anyway. Obedience has always been part of the Jewish understanding of the 10 commandments, as well.

The Forum Rules forbid me to be other than courteous. Our Lord did a favour in, ‘to our way of thinking’ (as the Fathers say) bringing forward the moment of His first Miracle as a concession to, and to reward the intercession of, His Mother. As a male Jew of adult age, He was not ‘bound in obedience’ beyond the Chains of Love. To go beyond this for the Son of God would be blasphemous. You have made a very poor argument here.

As for the limits of true obedience, this has been discussed more than once on this thread.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Our Lord did a favour in, ‘to our way of thinking’ (as the Fathers say) bringing forward the moment of His first Miracle as a concession to, and to reward the intercession of, His Mother. As a male Jew of adult age, He was not ‘bound in obedience’ beyond the Chains of Love.

Protestant friends of mine, unfortunately mostly former Catholics, have made references to this scripture to demonstrate that Christ thought little of His mother, calling her ‘woman’, a perceived denigration in the English language.

Bringing the Church father’s teachings to light here is spot on and commendable, Num.

 

[ProVobis]

Protestant friends of mine, unfortunately mostly former Catholics, have made references to this scripture to demonstrate that Christ thought little of His mother, calling her ‘woman’, a perceived denigration in the English language.

A little off topic, but it’s no wonder St. Thomas More and others strongly objected to the Latin Vulgate being translated into English.

 

[otjm]

1. Keep telling yourself that.

I don’t have to tell myself anything. The issue is disciplinary, not doctrinal which is obvious from the prior practicefor about half the life of the Church. To anyone who knows the difference between doctrine and discipline, this is a complete non-issue. thus the Church for whatever reason it choses can change the discipline back, and has specifically done so by giving permission to receive in the hand. And if the Church has the authority to change discipline - which histroy itself shows us it does, and then does so, no lay person has the ability to say that following the allowed discipline is sinful.

So the short of it is I do not have to tell myself it is not sinful; the Church has said it is not.

1. Recently? What has he done now, questioned some of the numbers on global climate change? Would it be helpful if he was ordered to apologize to everyone on earth who has a hybrid vehicle in their garage?

He came out with a fpublic statement in the press that reconcilliation with Rome was not possible - unless Rome adopted the SSPX postions. Sorry, I did not save the quote or source, but I suspect you could find it if you wished.

1. The Church and its clergy would do well to concentrate their efforts on the salvation of souls - a field in which they have expertise.
   .

Most of the clergy I have met do so.

 

[otjm]

The Tridentine rubrics left the very minimum to the discretion of the priest – knowing that “we hold a treasure in earthen vessels”. The rubric for the TLM was (and presumably still is, under its new name of the Extraordinary Form) that the Missa Lecta (Low Mass) is to take no less than 25 minutes and no more than 35. See, they had even this catered for. The priest you speak of was disobeying the rubrics.
otjm, would you not agree that the TLM operates to hide the personality of the priest, while the NO brings it into prominence?

I would say that the rubrics were more complex in the EF. However, if a priest is actually following the rubrics of the OF and is reverent, I don’t find his personality intruding any more that I did as a boy serving at the EF.

I know many don’t like the priest facing the congregation. But I find that a priest who is reverent, facing the congregation, conveys that reverence more clearly than a priest who is ad orientem. I can see the reverence in his expression and posture more clearly.

Sadly, we did lose a tremendous amount of reverence early on, and it has been slow coming back; but in particular I find the John Paul 2 priests to be much more reverent than their predecessors.

As to the personality of the priest - maybe it is that I know too many priests personally, and knew them so before Vatican 2 (my parents were fond of having various priests for dinner, and in high school and college I was taught by a number of priests). So their personality is there for me no matter which form they were saying.

If they ar not following the rubrics, then I think their personality is intruding on the Mass, no matter which form. And obviously it goes without saying that we have had far more priests not following the rubrics (at least in obvious ways) in the OF than the EF.

 

[Lycorth]

The Tridentine rubrics left the very minimum to the discretion of the priest – knowing that “we hold a treasure in earthen vessels”. The rubric for the TLM was (and presumably still is, under its new name of the Extraordinary Form) that the Missa Lecta (Low Mass) is to take no less than 25 minutes and no more than 35. See, they had even this catered for. The priest you speak of was disobeying the rubrics.

otjm, would you not agree that the TLM operates to hide the personality of the priest, while the NO brings it into prominence?

I agree with otjm that if a reverent priest is saying an OF Mass, he will bring that reverence into it.

But, the TLM is truly much more proof against a priest not being reverent; the proliferation of strict discipline in the rubrics are like safety protocols when handling dangerous machinery - they make sure that our behavior is directed safely and in the case of the Mass, respectfully. Little things add up to big results, and the little rubrics that many modern Catholics may think extraneous are in fact little bricks that together build a massive tower of faith.

Strip away the safety protocols, the rubrics, and it is no wonder that OF Masses can be accidentally or deliberately profane.

 

[otjm]

I agree with otjm that if a reverent priest is saying an OF Mass, he will bring that reverence into it.

But, the TLM is truly much more proof against a priest not being reverent; the proliferation of strict discipline in the rubrics are like safety protocols when handling dangerous machinery - they make sure that our behavior is directed safely and in the case of the Mass, respectfully. Little things add up to big results, and the little rubrics that many modern Catholics may think extraneous are in fact little bricks that together build a massive tower of faith.

Strip away the safety protocols, the rubrics, and it is no wonder that OF Masses can be accidentally or deliberately profane.

I can’t think of a single circumstance where the Mass could be accidentally profane. Perhaps you could supply one; but I suspect every one of them will be a deliberate issue. The priest did not know what the rubric was? Training - someone failed to train him and that was deliberate.

He thought he could change things? Deliberate, although not necessarily of evil intent.

Profane implies intent. Lack of intent to profane something is not the same thing as doing something wrong, when that is what you have been taught - either by your brother priests, or in your seminary training.

Let’s take an example; in the EF the priest can only touch the consecrated Host with thumb and one finger. In the OF, no such rubric exists. Handling the Eucharist with more than thumb and one finger is not intrinsically profane; personal opinions to the contrary. That rule is not from the early Church; it was instituted much later. And an underlying presumption that appears to exist is that the sum and substance of the rules as we had them as of, say, 1958 were the ultimate in perfection; this ignores the fact that some rules were put in because of time and place specific issues. The Church has changed the rules, and we need to not get trapped in pharisaical responses - which is all too possible when we elevate rules such as this beyond the disciplinary rules that they are.

And before you fire off an email back on this, go read what I wrote again. I am not standing in judgement of the rules of the EF; but if the Church decides to change some of them, therre will be some who will question the Church’s right, ability, and holiness as the questioners have elevated the rules to doctrinal issues. They are not. And no, it is not necessarily an issue of the older rules being wrong - as if there was a moral connotation to their change. Not all changes to rubrics and rules are a statement of moral turpitude; in fact, none of the changes are.

We can all agree that the rubrics for the EF were and are much tighter and more extensive than those of the OF. However, some of the judgements made about the differences have more to do with personal feelings than they do reality.

And as to the comment about the rubrics of the EF: “But, the TLM is truly much more proof against a priest not being reverent”, you might want to go and read again what I said about priests being reverent. Reverent is as reverent does. One can easily lack reverence in saying the EF; the priest was only viewed from the back, and a goodly part of the Mass was not vocalized enough to get any inflection in his voice. He could be tired, bored, bemused, concentrating on parish issues, be a pedophile (the one I rode to high school with was a pedophile, and had been active and ordained pre-Vatican 2), day dreaming, or any number of other mental and/or physical states and be simply “getting through” the Mass. As long as he tracked on the readings and the rubrics, you would have no clue.

A truly humble and poorly educated, not particulalry bright priest can say the EF, screw up some of the Latin, bumble in the rubrics, and be ever more reverent than the brilliant, top of the class but prideful, Modernist infected (Forgive me, I hate that word) priest saying the EF in 1962. Where do you think the chaos in the Mass started? It was with all the priests who had been ordained, many of them a decade or more, before Vatican 2. Who do you think set them up for the chaos? The seminary professors (at that time, priests)…

Is anybody out there seeing anything in these issues? This chaos didn’t spring out of nowhere. We didn’t have 5 or 10 thousand priests ordained 10 weeks after the close of Vatican 2 with them being the only ones who played lemming and went over the cliff.

 

[pnewton]

Strip away the safety protocols, the rubrics, and it is no wonder that OF Masses can be accidentally or deliberately profane.

How strict the rubrics are only apply if one obeys the rubrics. If one ignores them, then the offer no protection at all against abuse.

 

[otjm]

How strict the rubrics are only apply if one obeys the rubrics. If one ignores them, then the offer no protection at all against abuse.

And if one executes them all, but in a haphazard or sloppy or indifferent manner, they do not insure reverence.

 

[ProVobis]

How strict the rubrics are only apply if one obeys the rubrics. If one ignores them, then the offer no protection at all against abuse.

With so many options and subjectivity, though, it is tough to be disobedient.

 

[otjm]

With so many options and subjectivity, though, it is tough to be disobedient.

If there are options, then one is not disobedient.

Subjectivity is another issue; and there is no subjectivity built into the rubrics of either.

 

[Aramis]

Then it’s gossip.

But you don’t seem to get it. If the bishop tells your father he must be in church ten minutes before Mass starting time but he gets there nine minutes before, is this DISOBEDIENCE severely wrong that he gets excommunicated? After all, he’s late per bishop’s explicit instructions, is he not? My point is that the disobedience has to be broken down into components and reasonableness to the command, severity, and if there are mitigating circumstances, no? Certainly if someone dies during that one minute, he’s on the hook but otherwise in normal circumstances is the bishop really going to issue a severe reprimand and take your father off his healthcare plan? Not if they need deacons.

Yes, if the bishop says 10 minutes, and he doesn’t plan ahead and is only there 9, yes, he should confess that. Clerics are, and have always been, since the Apostolic era, held to a higher standard than laymen.

 

[pnewton]

With so many options and subjectivity, though, it is tough to be disobedient.

I guess what I am thinking of is all the abuse threads, stories and pictures we have seen. People do ignore the rubrics sometimes. For such ones, the problem is not the rubrics but an internal attitude of non-conformity and lack of respect. Such a character would come through all rules and manifest in all situations.

 

[Layman]

The norm in the O.F. is novelty. In an odd way, this may have saved the E.F.

Want to express yourself in a Mass? You have one to suit. Want to worship quietly and in peace? You have a Mass to suit.

Want to put your personal stamp on the E.F or add in populist elements? Ah, we see you now for what you are.

[Ha ha ha!]

 

[otjm]

The norm in the O.F. is novelty. In an odd way, this may have saved the E.F.

Want to express yourself in a Mass? You have one to suit. Want to worship quietly and in peace? You have a Mass to suit.

Want to put your personal stamp on the E.F or add in populist elements? Ah, we see you now for what you are.

[Ha ha ha!]

No, the norm of the OF is not novelty. The norm of the OF is how the Pope celebrates it, and how it is celebrated, for example, at our local Trappist Abbey.

Get over yourself.

 

[Geremia]

Nonsense. Anyone, including an atheist, can perform baptisms.

Only under very special circumstances; see CCL

All priests, suspended, sexual molesters, others, can confect the Host and Wine.

No. See Can. 900 §1: “The minister who is able to confect the sacrament of the Eucharist in the person of Christ is a validly ordained priest alone.” Are all SSPX priests validly ordained? Probably not all since 4 of their bishops used to be excommunicated, and all others (if any) still are.

I can’t perform but one of the sacraments. I guess I’m not in full communion?

No, I was referring to the group, not its individuals.

 

[pnewton]

No, only baptized Christians can perform baptisms. Where are you getting your information?That is absolutely false. Are you saying everyone is in the Catholic Church?

And all priests (SSPX and diocesan) must have the authority bestowed upon them by the local bishop to hear confessions and to marry.

These are found in the Code of Canon Law. Both statements are true. I quoted the Code on another thread yesterday.

If anyone desires to know which is true, I recommend a quick seardj do find the answer. That way you get the Church’s answer directly.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Protestant friends of mine, unfortunately mostly former Catholics, have made references to this scripture to demonstrate that Christ thought little of His mother, calling her ‘woman’, a perceived denigration in the English language.

This raises the whole question of translation, which is much less clear-cut than might meet the eye. A language is not simply a code for a pre-defined meaning, but the vehicle of a whole culture, with huge baggage. In the Indonesian culture, old age is greatly revered, and to that ethnic group, whose males are almost beardless, it is a huge status symbol to have facial and body hair. Hence, one phrase, in Indonesian, which denotes great respect, translates literally into English as “Hairy Old Man”. How would we translate that accurately into English?

Bilingual people, if required to repeat a comment in the other language, very seldom repeat a word-for-word version such as one would do in school. Often the whole set of shades of meaning is different. You need to ‘put it another way’ – you might even say soething really different in the other language. Irish (Gaelic) is both more precise, and more emotional, than English. You are ‘allowed’ to say things that are simply not acceptable in English – not to mention saying in a word what would take a paragraph in English. And there are English phrases that really do not have an Irish equivalent either. I’ll never forget the Donegal man who took his car to the mechanics & said “there’s something wrong with the crankshaft” –“Tá rud éigint ar a’ chrankshaft”!

Any translation is “a polite fiction”. You are pretending that the suject is speaking English – an impossibility in First Century Palestine, when the ancestors of the English were still running around in the northern forests painted blue… You have to ask two questions that can have different answers: “What do the words he used mean in English?” And “If he were speaking 21st Century English, what would he actually have said here?” This is bad enough to sort out when we are talking about two contemporary languages – that is, cultures – but how can you put Modern English into the mouth of a Palestinian of 1000 years before Christ? A Jew told my brother once that they smile at our translations: the psalm that we have as “Praise God, O my soul” actually says in Hebrew, “Praise God, O my liver”. Yet that too is misleading, because the Hebrew word can mean what we mean by ‘soul’ as well as ‘liver’.

The 16th century translators of the Bible had very little understanding of all this. The Greeks who wrote the Septuagint had better. The translators of the King James (and maybe the Douay also, I haven’t read) tried hard to ensure that the same word in Hebrew was always translated by the same English word. But this is based on a false assumption: that there actually is a one-to-one correspondence of words. Anybody who knows two languages, even closely related ones, knows that this actually is not so.

Aramaic was a workaday trade language, with few subtleties. It was perfectly polite to address a woman in the way that is translated “Woman”. A translation that gets the subtletiescorrectly would translate it sometimes as “woman” and sometimes as “Lady” or “Madam”.

These are indeed the kind of traps for the unwary that must beset “Bible-Only Protestants”. S. Peter warned us against it.

 

[Layman]

No, the norm of the OF is not novelty. The norm of the OF is how the Pope celebrates it, and how it is celebrated, for example, at our local Trappist Abbey.

Get over yourself.

If you go from diocese to diocese, parish to parish and even church to church and are not sure what you’re going get, then the norm is novelty. The standard, on the other hand, is probably only said in a few places in the world.

The prayers of modernists have been answered; a Mass you can mould to your tastes. Want formality? You can have it. Want hullaballo? It can be done.

**Because the Novus Ordo exists, attempts to add novelty to the TLM will look, rightly, meddlesome. **

**If you want to modify the E.F., then why not simply say the O.F.?

If you want a formal O.F. according to the rubrics of Paul VI, then why not just go for the E.F.?**
**
Therefore, the N.O. has probably saved the TLM.** I’ve read on here that clerics were getting creative with it before Vat. II e.g. adding in the vernacular.