SSPX / RCC talks

[PilgrimToChrist]

And after your specifically-chosen wording to denigrate the OF liturgy

I’m actually referring more to the implementation of the NO, that is, what various “liturgical committees” come up with. But the Rite in question does not really matter – Roman Rite, the Neo-Roman Rite, the Byzantine Rite (and abuses do happen in the Eastern Rites), etc. Liturgical abuse is not limited to the Neo-Roman Rite (“Ordinary Form”).

we find the oft-quoted *Spirit of the Liturgy *treatise by Card. Ratzinger, as if the words spoken as a Cardinal should become dogma when he is made Pope. Not so fast. A cardinal’s election as pope does not in any way validate his earlier remarks, none of which were protected in the least by the grace of his later office.

And the remarks of a pope are not protected unless he is intentionally trying to define a dogma. The fact that Cardinal Ratzinger is currently reigning as Pope Benedict XVI is largely irrelevant. The point is that he is a moderate-liberal / Nouvelle Theologie theologian and even he believes this. I don’t suppose if I had quoted Bp. Williamson’s comments on the liturgy, they would have had the same effect…

If Cardinal Ratzinger’s suggestions for the celebration of the liturgy contained within The Spirit of the Liturgy" were followed, the spiritual life of the Church would be 100x better in the short run, at least. As far as the long-run goes, I am not actually a proponent of the “Reform of the Reform”, as Ratzinger/Benedict is, but rather I would like to see the whole so-called “reform” project scrapped. Semper reformanda is not a truly Catholic sentiment. So part of the importance of quoting Ratzinger is the fact that I don’t agree with him much of the time, but I agree with him on this and he is certainly mainstream enough to be taken seriously by many people, unlike Traditionalist authors associated with the SSPX, FSSP, or other groups.

To assert that the mind of the Church is known from the work of Joseph Ratzinger in, say, 1990, is no wiser than saying it can be known by his common theological opponent, Walter Kasper.

Again, I merely quoted him because I agree with him. I would find it unlikely that I would be quoting Walter Kasper or Edward Schillebeeckx or Annibale Bugnini’s thoughts on the liturgy positively. But in this regards, I do agree with Cardinal Ratzinger. Do you object in principle to quotations or only ones from Ratzinger? It would seem, however, that Ratzinger’s comments should have more weight than Jeffrey Mirus’ comments (the author of this statement, as you linked to, although you added the smiley).

The Mind of the Church is best understood from Tradition, not the work of a single author or a single generation but rather the Church’s thought throughout history. Insofar as Ratzinger/Benedict is in accord with Tradition, I will support and quote him. Insofar as he is not in accord with Tradition, I will criticize him (with all due respect, of course).

No, to learn the mind of the Pope (and therefore something of the mind of the Church) on such matters as the liturgy, we need to look to what the Pope has said while in office.

That would assume that the mind of the pope is in conformity with the mind of the Church on the theology of the liturgy.

[The article explains further in http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=684”]this link

.]

Should I attack your use of a link to another article for the same reasons that you attacked my quotation of Cardinal Ratzinger (and yes, I do own the book and have read it a couple times, I typed it up out of the book)?

You should, however, make it clear what parts of your post are copied from another author and which are your own comments. Several part of this post are direct quotations from this article but you provided no quotation marks or blockquote.

My advice to those who seriously dislike the Novus Ordo is this: Admit your personal preference for the Extraordinary Form if you like; true Catholics should not criticize you for it, even if they prefer the Ordinary Form.

No, I will not admit my “personal preference” for the “Extraordinary Form”. That would imply that “personal preference” has any real bearing on this issue, it does not. It is not like a question of “Should I buy a red car or a blue car? Should I have Mexican or Thai food for dinner? etc.” Someone’s favorite color or food is a “personal preference”, this is not a “personal preference” issue. The issue is objective, not subjective.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

True. One could probably still easily use a 1570 A.D. missal to follow the Mass of 1961, granted there were minor changes to rubrics (as you have stated), saints added to the propers, prefaces added, Holy Week changed, and the name of St. Joseph added to the canon. The latter was considered the most major change as it was presumed the Council of Trent codified the canon. There are those who claim the FSSPX has already made major concessions by accepting the insertion of St. Joseph into the Canon and the 1955 Holy Week.

Archbishop Lefebvre stuck with the last typical edition of the Roman Missal. There were experimental changes made in the 1960s (sometimes referred to as the “1965 Missal” – which is the 1962 Missal with modifications) but none of these led to the creation of an actual edition of the Missal.

Thus we (nearly all Traditionalists) utilize the most recent edition of the Roman Missal. The Missal of 1970 was not an edition of the Roman Missal, it was the creation of a new Rite (or new “form of the Roman Rite”, as is the official terminology since 2007). This does not mean that there were no problems with the 1962 Missal, e.g. that we have no issue with the 1955 Holy Week (Bugnini’s experiment which even he admitted was just a stepping stone to the creation of a whole new Rite). We simply use the latest edition available.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

couldn’t he have personally vowed to reform it to the point is was no longer a “banal fabrication?”

How could you reform a fabrication until it is not a fabrication anymore?

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

"PilgrimToChrist:

What we have now are simply two Rites which claim to be the Roman Rite – the Old Rite (which dates to Apostolic times) and the New Rite (which dates to 1970)

Actually, Pilgrim, there are nine rites, and these have changed often since apostolic times.

There are nine Rites which claim to be the Roman Rite? Elaborate.

That’s not what is important. The “essence” of the rite, no matter the form, has never been changed, and never will be, or it would not be the Mass, the sacrifice of Christ.

Yes, every valid Mass is a Holy Sacrifice. But the Rite is an incredibly important part of extrinsic tradition. It is the way in which the Faith is passed down from generation to generation and affects strongly how people view their Faith. It is quite wrong to say it doesn’t really matter as long as the priest says the Words of Consecration, we can do whatever we want.

To extend a quote I made earlier from Cardinal Ratzinger:
Cardinal Ratzinger:

The “rite”, that form of celebration and prayer which has ripened in the faith and the life of the Church, is a condensed form of living tradition in which the sphere which uses that rite expresses the whole of its faith and its prayer, and thus at the same time the fellowship of generations one with another becomes something we can experience, fellowship with the people who pray before us and after us. Thus the rite is something of benefit which is given to the Church, a living form of paradosis the handing-on of tradition.

It is important, in this connection, to interpret the “substantial continuity” correctly. The author expressly warns us against the wrong path up which we might be led by a neo-scholastic sacramental theology which is disconnected from the living form of the Liturgy. On that basis, people might reduce the “substance” to the material and form of the sacrament, and say: Bread and wine are the matter of the sacrament, the words of institution are its form. Only these two things are really necessary, everything else is changeable. At this point Modernists and Traditionalists are in agreement: As long as the material gifts are there, and the words of institution are spoken, then everything else is freely disposable. Many priests today, unfortunately, act in accordance with this motto; and the theories of many liturgists are unfortunately moving in the same direction. They want to overcome the limits of the rite, as being something fixed and immovable, and construct the products of their fantasy, which are supposedly ‘pastoral,’ around this remnant, this core which has been spared, and which is thus either relegated to the realm of magic, or loses any meaning whatever. The Liturgical Movement had in fact been attempting to overcome this reductionism, the product of an abstract sacramental theology, and to teach us to understand the Liturgy as a living network of tradition which had taken concrete form, which cannot be torn apart into little pieces, but has to be seen and experienced as a living whole. Anyone like myself, who was moved by this perception in the time of the Liturgical Movement on the eve of the Second Vatican Council, can only stand, deeply sorrowing, before the ruins of the very things they were concerned for.

 

[pnewton]

Not all teaching is dogma. No new dogma was defined at Vatican II, this has been very well-established, by Pope Paul VI, Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI, and others (contrary to the assertions of some neocons who hold every word written at the Council to be the Word of God).
Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI maintains to this day that the Council can be re-interpreted in light of Tradition, the “hermenuetic of continuity”. …So that’s the real question with regards to the New Mass and with regards to the Second Vatican Council

For me, I see the real question as being when does one decide that this ecumenical council, that the election of Pope John Paul II and the papacy of Pope Benedict XVI, is the work of the Holy Spirit. It seems all that the SSPX is fighting against is indicative of the Holy Spirit abandoning the Catholic Church, or at the very least being ineffective. I understand that all the parties still operate individually with free will, but how long must one kick against the goads, as St. Paul heard it put by Christ. Fifty years? One hundred years? Two hundred?

FYI - I believe the political perjorative “neocons” to be inappropriate rhetoric. If anything convinces me of the error of SSPX it is the excessive use of name-calling and the continual labeling of all Catholics except them into groups. I would say that it was the SSPX website itself, and their own statements that lead me to believe discount their position. I find it hard to get past such statements like:

The fact that Cardinal Ratzinger is currently reigning as Pope Benedict XVI is largely irrelevant. The point is that he is a moderate-liberal / Nouvelle Theologie theologian and even he believes this.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Note please the obligation to assent on ALL matters even though they are not explicitly labeled “dogmatic.”

Just because something is taught more recently, doesn’t automatically mean it overturns all prior contrary teachings.

And even if “you” believe it was merely a pastoral council,

Pope Paul VI:

In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility,

Cardinal Ratzinger:

The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council;

It seems that if I believe this, I am in good company. You also still have yet to name what new dogma was promulgated at the Second Vatican Council (and explain why no one noticed).

it’s irrelevant, because it nonetheless fulfilled the conditions of Infallibility, as defined by Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4:

So now the Second Vatican Council is a pope?

I will grant you that the Second Vatican Council was a validly convoked Ecumenical Council and, as such, receives the charism of infallibility – it could not have defined any dogma which was contrary to the Faith.

I am happy to shed my lifeblood for every dogma of the Faith, including those defined at Vatican II. So please, just give a list of the dogmas defined at Vatican II.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Perhaps the SSPX needs to accept that there may be a reason the Holy Spirit has guided the Church in the direction the He has taken her.

Do you really think that the “Spirit of Vatican II” that guided the Church to a moral, theological and liturgical collapse was God the Holy Ghost? The fruits which we have harvested from Vatican II have been very bitter.

However, if we think of it as a chastisement, the picture looks much more rosy and I am happy to say that God had a hand in that. That is, the Church was allowed to collapse and these things were allowed to be taken from us, so that we would love them more. We stopped loving the Faith and the Mass in the first half of the 20th c. and look what happened. Now we have a new Liturgical Movement going on, that is seeking to revitalize the Mass, we have young people who are excited about the Faith and the Traditional Mass, we in this younger generation (even my priest was born after the promulgation of the New Mass) are raising our children in the Faith (usually either through homeschooling or traditional, independent, Catholic schools) and we have vowed not to let happen again what was allowed to happen to the Church.

So, certainly, I believe that God had a hand in what happened, just not really in the same way that you do. That is, God pulled back His hand and allowed the enemy to attack the Church, to prune Her, to humble Her and to get Her to turn back towards Him and love Him.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

This has not happened. The A, not-A scenario has not occured. I think that logic would dictate that at the least the SSPX must weight the possibility that this 180 degree reversal they see is not there. Most human beings are willing to consider the possibility that they might be wrong.

Maybe it has, maybe it has not. It certainly appears to have but without a clarification on the documents of Vatican II – even 46 years after its close – this question will have to remain open.

But point with the A/~A scenario is the point of positivism, or what Fr. Ripperger referred to in my quote as “Magisterialism” – an almost dogmatic obedience to whatever the current Magisterium says in contrast to any and all prior teachings on the subject. When you address this scenario on Friday, which position do you hold, A or ~A?

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

For me, I see the real question as being when does one decide that this ecumenical council, that the election of Pope John Paul II and the papacy of Pope Benedict XVI, is the work of the Holy Spirit. It seems all that the SSPX is fighting against is indicative of the Holy Spirit abandoning the Catholic Church, or at the very least being ineffective. I understand that all the parties still operate individually with free will, but how long must one kick against the goads, as St. Paul heard it put by Christ. Fifty years? One hundred years? Two hundred?

I think you go too far when you say that the SSPX says that the Holy Spirit has “[abandoned] the Catholic Church”. I cannot speak for the SSPX and I do not attend Mass there (I attend an FSSP parish), but with regards to Traditionalists in general, only sedevacantists believe that the putative Catholic Church is not really the Catholic Church (and thus the Holy Ghost has abandoned the putative Catholic Church).

FYI - I believe the political perjorative “neocons” to be inappropriate rhetoric.

What would you prefer?

I find it hard to get past such statements like:

The fact that Cardinal Ratzinger is currently reigning as Pope Benedict XVI is largely irrelevant. The point is that he is a moderate-liberal / Nouvelle Theologie theologian and even he believes this.

Is it wrong to characterize Ratzinger/Benedict as a moderate? I know the media kept calling him the “God’s Rottweiler”, but they also insisted that Pope John Paul II was very conservative, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

With regards to the Nouvelle Theologie, there can be no contention there. Ratzinger was a founding member of an NT journal and a prominent proponent of this philosophy. That philosophy still often shows through in his writings and he has never publicly repudiated anything that he has written.

Remember, this is still the same Ratzinger, he swears that he has not changed.

http://www.wir-sind-kirche.de/files/1388_W�rzburger_Synode_Rahner+Ratzinger_400br.JPG
Joseph Ratzinger and Karl Rahner

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Karl Rahner, Joseph Ratzinger, Martin Bialas

 

[pnewton]

I think you go too far when you say that the SSPX says that the Holy Spirit has “[abandoned] the Catholic Church”.

I did not say that. Re-read my sentence. I offered two possiblities and did not claim they are the only possibilities though no other come to mind.

With regards to the Nouvelle Theologie, there can be no contention thered
Ratzinger was a founding member of an NT journal and a prominent proponent of this philosophy. That philosophy still often shows through in his writings and he has never publicly repudiated anything that he has written.

I note that no where has Scholasticism ever been defined by the Catholic Church as the exclusive means of considering Truth. Likewise, an increased reliance on the Sacred Scriptures and Church Fathers (Nouvelle Theologie) has ever been condemned. Both are only methods, not theologies.

Is it wrong to characterize Ratzinger/Benedict as a moderate?

That is not what you said. You said: " he is a moderate-liberal "
I note that twice in this post you quoted half and omitted another half, the more important half.

 

[Aramis]

The Various Western “Rites” or Uses
Specific Approved Missals in regular (if not routine) use:
Roman OF
Roman EF
Ambrosian/Milanese
Mozarabic
Bragan
Dominican Missal
Roman OF with Dominican Propers*
Carthusian
Anglican Use

Still approved but might not be in use:
Carmelite
Dalmation (Old Church Slavonic version of the EF)
Sarum (approved as an EF for special occasions in UK Cathedrals only, almost never used. Anglican Church uses it in English and Latin from time to time, tho’.)

And I know I missed one, but can’t recall which one of the religious order’s rites. And this also is ignoring the specific ethnic adaptations approved by rome as indults for various places, like the African indult for liturgical dance, and the Yupic indult for both liturgical dance and for native deacons to use Kuspuk’s instead of dalmatic and alb.

*was used at Holy Family Cathedral in the 80’s and 90’s under approval from rome for said use by friars of the Western Dominican Priory, and I believe, all other dominican priories.

 

[laszlo]

Perhaps because it was never an issue. Ecumenical Councils address problem areas and as this is something taught by Jesus, Paul and John (off the top of my head), it simply wasn’t something that was questioned until recent times.

The main theme of the XXI Ecumenical council was to define, what is the Church. Vatican I started this definition but due to the war it was not finished, so Vatican II addressed primarily the Ecclesiology.

The most important Dogmatical Constitution was the Lumen Gentium, and the others too centered around this topic:

• how the Church worship God (Sacrosanctum Concilium)
• how the Church interprets the Word of God (Dei Verbum)
• what is the relationship between the Church and the word (Gaudium et Spes)

 

[Sirach2]

Pilgrim,

As was the situation at the other forum, you are well-armed with deceptive rhetoric, pages and pages of arguments pulled from SSPX and/or logic that is highly similar in spirit. I won’t spend the time debating this foolishness, for you are not, and never were open to dialogue, but pursue your own faulty agenda with a zeal that astounds me. Would that you used one iota of it for spreading the truth.

“I know My sheep, and they follow Me. But a stranger they will not follow because they do not know the voice of strangers.”

 

[Sirach2]

Laszlo:

Never not for a moment taught the XXI Ecumenical council that people are the Church, or even primary in the Church.

pnewton:

Perhaps because it was never an issue. Ecumenical Councils address problem areas and as this is something taught by Jesus, Paul and John (off the top of my head), it simply wasn’t something that was questioned until recent times.

Pnewton is correct, Laszlo, that essentially this is found in scripture, and the CCC makes reference to those specific scriptures in this paragraph in the tiny numerical footnotes.

**752 **In Christian usage, the word “church” designates the liturgical assembly, but also the local community or the whole universal community of believers. These three meanings are inseparable. “The Church” is the People that God gathers in the whole world. She exists in local communities and is made real as a liturgical, above all a Eucharistic, assembly. She draws her life from the word and the Body of Christ and so herself becomes Christ’s Body.

The entire teaching can be found on this page, but there are other references throughout the Catechism. If this does not help, I’ll be glad to furnish them.

 

[ProVobis]

Just because something is taught more recently, doesn’t automatically mean it overturns all prior contrary teachings.

I believe this is an important point and it was made in the article I alluded to earlier:

…
As Vatican II noted, the weight to be given such teaching is “according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.” Thus, more weight would have to be given to something taught many times by successive popes than to something taught once by one pope. …

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=564105&Pg=Forum8&Pgnu=1&recnu=3

 

[laszlo]

Pnewton is correct, Laszlo, that essentially this is found in scripture, and the CCC makes reference to those specific scriptures in this paragraph in the tiny numerical footnotes.

The difference is what you mean ‘the Church’. Naturally people are part of the Church, but the Church is significantly more that just people.

777 The word “Church” means “convocation.” It designates the assembly of those whom God’s Word “convokes,” i.e., gathers together to form the People of God, and who themselves, nourished with the Body of Christ, become the Body of Christ.

778 The Church is both the means and the goal of God’s plan: prefigured in creation, prepared for in the Old Covenant, founded by the words and actions of Jesus Christ, fulfilled by his redeeming cross and his Resurrection, the Church has been manifested as the mystery of salvation by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. She will be perfected in the glory of heaven as the assembly of all the redeemed of the earth (cf. Rev 14:4).

779 The Church is both visible and spiritual, a hierarchical society and the Mystical Body of Christ. She is one, yet formed of two components, human and divine. That is her mystery, which only faith can accept.

780 The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men.

 

[Sirach2]

Laszlo:

The difference is what you mean ‘the Church’.

“Your” meaning of church as expressed in your previous posts looked as if you excluded the “Mystical Body of Christ” – which indeed we are. That narrower view was not scriptural, as pnewton tried to point out. I hope we are all on the same page now?

 

[laszlo]

“Your” meaning of church as expressed in your previous posts looked as if you excluded the “Mystical Body of Christ” – which indeed we are. That narrower view was not scriptural, as pnewton tried to point out. I hope we are all on the same page now?

I never did that. I only claimed and claim with he Church, that th mystical body is hierarchical ofrganization, with significantly different roles between the members.

The ‘We the people’ in the US Constitution represent democracy, people “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, …”

Such thing in the Church (ruling by the people) is unacceptable in the Church, even in the field of liturgy, and in any other field.

 

[Sirach2]

Laszlo, I don’t think we are seeing one another’s truth, but I don’t want to derail this thread further by exploring each other’s meanings. Have a good day.

 

[JReducation]

The Various Western “Rites” or Uses
Specific Approved Missals in regular (if not routine) use:
Roman OF
Roman EF
Ambrosian/Milanese
Mozarabic
Bragan
Dominican Missal
Roman OF with Dominican Propers*
Carthusian
Anglican Use

Still approved but might not be in use:
Carmelite
Dalmation (Old Church Slavonic version of the EF)
Sarum (approved as an EF for special occasions in UK Cathedrals only, almost never used. Anglican Church uses it in English and Latin from time to time, tho’.)

And I know I missed one, but can’t recall which one of the religious order’s rites. And this also is ignoring the specific ethnic adaptations approved by rome as indults for various places, like the African indult for liturgical dance, and the Yupic indult for both liturgical dance and for native deacons to use Kuspuk’s instead of dalmatic and alb.

*was used at Holy Family Cathedral in the 80’s and 90’s under approval from rome for said use by friars of the Western Dominican Priory, and I believe, all other dominican priories.

Bold is mine

Were you thinking about the Roman-Franciscan, which was once called the Seraphic Missal? We don’t have a rite per se, but we still have our own missal, lectionary, liturgical calendar and “rubrics”. I placed that in quotation marks, because they are more customs than rubrics. For example, we don’t have communion rails unless we inherit a church or chapel that has them. That often happens. Someone else built it and one of the Franciscan branches later moves in. The idea of no communion rail dates back to the 12th century. The reason is because the entire space is sacred space. The stricter observances don’t have kneelers either. People either stand or kneel on the floor. At a conventual mass, the brotherhood stands around the altar, if there is room to do so. This is to place emphasis on the oneness of the fraternity. Francis did not want priests to stand out from their brothers. The rule says that if there is more than one friar priest in the house, only one can celebrate mass. We don’t have what people call “private” masses. We never use that term. However, if there is a need for a second mass, such as at a parish and you have more than one ordained brother, then each celebrates a mass.

In the OF, there is allowance for concelebration. That takes care of the issue of a friar priest celebrating a mass by himself.

We don’t have a tradition of Gregorian Chant. Even in today’s EF, it’s rarely used. We do have a type of plain chant. That is often used in both the EF and OF. If you watch mass on EWTN, you’ll hear it used quite often. We do have dialog in the EF. It is said aloud. One has to remember, that when we were founded, in 1209, what is the current EF is the form that Francis put together from an old missal given to him by Pope Innocent III. In those days, there was no regulation about about the priest whispering to himself. Also, the laity rarely attended mass at a friary or community house. That came much later with the missionary activity. The friars kept the same customs that they had used in the house. They just carried them to the missions throughout Europe.

Finally, we have never been bound to celebrate mass in a chapel or church. The friars often celebrated and still celebrate mass on a board over a rock, if that’s all that they have. They don’t skip mass, for lack of a chapel or church. The emphasis is on the love for the mass and the Eucharist, not on the space. You will see friar-priests celebrating mass over a coffee table, a cafeteria table, a grand altar in a cathedral, a humble altar in a chapel. As long as the mass is celebrated, that’s what matters, in the Franciscan tradition.

Similar customs also apply to the Divine Office. We recite, we don’t chant. We use whatever language the local fraternity decides to use. For example, in the USA the three languages used are English, Spanish and Latin. It all depends on the house. The local superior decides that. Each superior has his preference. Again, that dates back to 1221. Francis gave the local superiors that authority in the Rule and the Rule has not been edited since 1223 when Pope Honorius III sealed it with a Bull. As recent as Pope John Paul II, the Church has said that the Franciscan Rule may never be touched. By protecting the rule, the Church has protected the Franciscan use in liturgy. The Franciscan use accommodates to the requirements of poverty and brotherhood in the Rule. To some visitors, when a Franciscan celebrates the EF, it may look different from the EF as is celebrated by the FSSP. It’s actually the same. It’s just spoken aloud, instead of whispered and the congregation sings hymns at the appropriate times. We have always had hymns in the vernacular, dating back to Francis himself who inserted hymns that he wrote. They were called Laudas, songs of praise. We also have the Office of the Passion, which can replace the Breviary. It was written by St. Francis and approved by Pope Gregory IX. It’s still in use in some houses.

This is what would be called a Franciscan Use, not a rite. It remains the Roman Rite with a Franciscan flavor, if you will.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF