M
Melchior_1
Guest
Name one Church doctrine flouted by the Jesuits.
- Status
T
TrueLight
Guest
How did the Jesuits get in this? Did I miss a post?
We could probably start a whole thread on this, or does one exist already?
W
wasserfall
Guest
Corporately as a group? I don’t know. Individual Jesuits? Many.
But then again, I wasn’t the one claiming that some particular group was flouting Church doctrine.
P
ProVobis
Guest
P
PaulinVA
Guest
A priest needs faculties to hear confessions. The SSPX gymnastics about the “emergency in the Church” and supplied faculties doesn’t cut it.
Heck, a suspended priest with “no ministry in the Church” shouldn’t be publicly saying Mass, either, even if the Vatican looks the other way.
W
wasserfall
Guest
None of that is contrary to any doctrine.
It is contrary to obedience.
And the whole discussion is about a post-regularization situation where the priests of the SSPX would not be suspended and would have faculties.
T
TrueLight
Guest
Yet the faithful were told that we do not sin if we attend an SSPX mass as long as we don’t have a schismatic mentality.
F
floresco
Guest
Such a spirituality may be as rare as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.
T
TrueLight
Guest
Haven’t seen you in a while.Such a spirituality may be as rare as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
PaulinVA:
Yet the faithful were told that we do not sin if we attend an SSPX mass as long as we don’t have a schismatic mentality.
From the looks of it – that kind of mentality has developed with time. Just go over to “Traditionalist” sites – and read the reaction to the supposed reconciliation headed by Bishop Fellay with Rome. Bishop Fellay is being labeled a “traitor” or worse.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
And that can be true. YOU are not sinning.
Now, if you know that the priest at the SSPX chapel is not allowed to hear confession because he lacks faculties, and you go anyway, that’s a mess I don’t know the answer to.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Several traditionalists point at the Jesuits as a troublemaking group as a whole. This of course isn’t true; no where has the official Jesuit governing body said anything resembling heresy or heterodoxy.
Meanwhile, the main SSPX site has;
From books to flyers, the USA District Office offers various apologetic items that explain Catholic Tradition and the SSPX..
*
Why the Latin Mass; Why not the New?
Outlines reasons why Catholics cannot in conscience attend the Novus Ordo Missae*
]Consequently there is always a doubt as to the intention of the priest in the celebration of the New Mass and sacraments, which does not in any way exist in the traditional rite. The only way to have moral certitude of valid sacraments is to assist at the traditional rite of Mass. Although theoretically it would be possible for a priest to celebrate sacrilegiously in the traditional rite by having a positive counter intention, it is hardly likely, given that the correct intention is repeated several times, which is not the case in the new rite. To the contrary, it is very likely that a Novus Ordo priest celebrate invalidly through lack of intention, since the full and correct intention is not included in the texts of the New Mass.
And of course:
*However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, **the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful. For the end does not justify the means. Consequently, although it is a good thing to want to assist at Mass and satisfy one’s Sunday obligation, it is never permitted to use a sinful means to do this. To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin. **It is opportunism. Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, **who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, *to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available.
This is all on the official SSPX web site, which to me would indicate it’s official position at the present time, or at least reflect a good number of people.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I believe the rewording of the definition of the Mass was rebuttal enough. However, many including Monsignor Gamber, whose book prefaced by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, still held the fact that Pope Paul signed a document which had “its source in the Protestant theology of the Abendmahl rite” against the newer Mass. Bishop Fellays mentions something to this effect in one of his videos.
W
wasserfall
Guest
That doesn’t mean they aren’t troublemakers.
I slightly expanded your quote because the previous part is relevant to the argument being made.
I don’t agree with Fr. Scott (a known hardliner) here, but it isn’t obvious to me that his argument is contrary to Catholic doctrine. His argument is broken down as follows:
- the intent to do as the Church does in celebrating mass is specifically the intent to offer a propitiatory sacrifice.
- the traditional mass makes this intent crystal clear, and so cannot be offered without this intent unless the priest wickedly forms a positive contrary intent.
- the new mass is ambiguous as to whether the intent is to offer a propitiatory sacrifice, so a (poorly formed) priest could easily celebrate mass without the requisite intent to do as the Church does.
- therefore the faithful have no moral certitude of a valid mass when attending a new mass.
For my part, I think Fr. Scott has already overreached at #1. If a heretic can validly baptize by intending to do as the Church does (while not intending to cleanse the soul of sin, but intending to pour water and say the words because that’s what the Church does), then it seems to me that a priest can have a valid intent to celebrate mass even if he is unclear about the sacrificial nature of the mass.
(end of part 1)
W
wasserfall
Guest
continued…
Likewise I think we can all agree that #1 is false (at least as a blanket statement). Brother JR recently stated in this forum that no mass is sacrilegious in itself, but that the circumstances can be sacrilegious (BBQ mass, etc.)
Fr. Scott argues in his article that certain circumstances often surrounding the new mass are objective mortal sins of sacrilege. These include: a) lack of respect and reverence, b) dancing, c) communion in the hand, d) ecumenical celebration. Once again, Fr. Scott may be wrong on an or all of a,b,c,d but the accusation is that the SSPX flouts Catholic doctrine.
To me, the big problem here seems to be #c. Communion in the hand is widely practiced and (although born of willful, stubborn, disobedience) is now permitted in many places. Is it possible for the Church to permit an objective sacrilege? My answer is that I don’t know. I can say however, that I once asked the question directly to an FSSP priest: “Is it a sacrilege to touch the host.” He got a very uncomfortable look, squirmed around a bit, and then said: “If it’s not, it’s about as close as you can get.” To him, at least, a priest in good standing with the Church, it seemed to be an open question.
Going back to the last quote, Fr. Scott argues that, even if none of the above circumstances (a,b,c,d) are present at a celebration of the new mass, the mass still involves an objective venial sin of sacrilege due to the intentional removal of the prayers establishing the propitiatory sacrifice from the new mass.
This is where I think he has really crossed the line. If he had said it was objectively a sin to remove the prayers from the mass in the first place I could accept that as being possible, but to claim that merely celebrating the mass today is objectively (venially) sinful due to the prayers having been removed 45 years ago seems hard to support. More to the point, it requires one to believe that the Church is capable of promulgating a mass that contains an objective sin.
Although Fr. Scott was district superior of the USA when he wrote this, and although it is published on the website of the US District of the SSPX, I suspect it (at least in this last partiuclar assertion) goes beyond what the leadership of the society in general would support. I am interested to see what happens with these FAQs over the next few months.
There are two propositions here:
- The new mass is objective sacrilegious (for various reasons given in the whole article)
- No Catholic ever has an obligation to participate in a sacrilege.
Likewise I think we can all agree that #1 is false (at least as a blanket statement). Brother JR recently stated in this forum that no mass is sacrilegious in itself, but that the circumstances can be sacrilegious (BBQ mass, etc.)
Fr. Scott argues in his article that certain circumstances often surrounding the new mass are objective mortal sins of sacrilege. These include: a) lack of respect and reverence, b) dancing, c) communion in the hand, d) ecumenical celebration. Once again, Fr. Scott may be wrong on an or all of a,b,c,d but the accusation is that the SSPX flouts Catholic doctrine.
To me, the big problem here seems to be #c. Communion in the hand is widely practiced and (although born of willful, stubborn, disobedience) is now permitted in many places. Is it possible for the Church to permit an objective sacrilege? My answer is that I don’t know. I can say however, that I once asked the question directly to an FSSP priest: “Is it a sacrilege to touch the host.” He got a very uncomfortable look, squirmed around a bit, and then said: “If it’s not, it’s about as close as you can get.” To him, at least, a priest in good standing with the Church, it seemed to be an open question.
Going back to the last quote, Fr. Scott argues that, even if none of the above circumstances (a,b,c,d) are present at a celebration of the new mass, the mass still involves an objective venial sin of sacrilege due to the intentional removal of the prayers establishing the propitiatory sacrifice from the new mass.
This is where I think he has really crossed the line. If he had said it was objectively a sin to remove the prayers from the mass in the first place I could accept that as being possible, but to claim that merely celebrating the mass today is objectively (venially) sinful due to the prayers having been removed 45 years ago seems hard to support. More to the point, it requires one to believe that the Church is capable of promulgating a mass that contains an objective sin.
Although Fr. Scott was district superior of the USA when he wrote this, and although it is published on the website of the US District of the SSPX, I suspect it (at least in this last partiuclar assertion) goes beyond what the leadership of the society in general would support. I am interested to see what happens with these FAQs over the next few months.
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
Reading texts out loud in Latin can also be taught in grade school.
I hope you agree that there is more to the Mass in any form or rite than just reading the texts!Edited to add: I see this is being discussed very thoroughly.
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
However the charism of the SPPX is to maintain the EF Mass, not to be philosophy teachers. Whatever the bishop said, I doubt we’ll see 100s of SPPX priests suddenly teaching in seminaries.
On the other hand, Latin immersion in seminary is a very interesting idea.
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
So it is bad when things done in disobidience are eventually tolerated by the church? Kinda like attending Mass at the local SSPX chapel?
I think we can’t have it both ways. If a bishop feels that action X will help the faithful and asks the Vatican to allow it and they agree, then no one is being disobedient anymore. To continue to act as if they are is disengenuous.
I am also interested in seeing what happens with that site. I would recommend that they take the whole thing down and start again with a clean slate and a very careful eye when they repost older material.
W
wasserfall
Guest
Actually the charism and founding purpose of the SSPX is to support and preserve the Catholic priesthood. So running seminaries and teaching at seminaries is very fitting.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Is there a concern – on part of the SSPX – that the Church would not preserve the Catholic priesthood?
- Status