SSPX Reconciliation

[palmas85]

I pray that reconciliation will be acomplished with the Society.

BUT

While the Society itself professes devotion to the Holy Father, many of those who attend their masses as well as some of their clergy hold distinctly sedavacantist views and would probably splinter off into other groups if the reconciliation did take place. I wouldn’t want to hazard a guess at the numbers, but I would think it would be a substantial number of their congregations.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

pgoings:

I’m sorry if I’m being obtuse, but does this mean that you would be against any scheme for reconciling the S.S.P.X. which did not involve them joining the F.S.S.P. or another existing group dedicated to the old Mass?

Your not being obtuse. No, I do not see that the SSPX would have to join one of the existing orders.

They could be reconciled and be recognized as a religious order themselves.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

pgoings:

So, if you prefer the old Mass, you’re* not* a traditionalist? Would you prefer the indult of '88 to be suppressed or revoked?

I did not say that. I took the totally opposite extreme as many traditionalists take who make the litmus test of being a traditionalist the preferance of the old Mass.

Traditionalism has nothing to do with disciplinary trappings.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

paramedicgirl:

ByzCath:

So I take you you believe that one who is drawen to and prefers the current Mass can not be a traditionalist?

You are reading way too much into what I said. It actually sounds argumentative. I attend the NO Mass and I have very traditional viewpoints. There goes your theory.

Huh? Actually it was a question to see what you think. It was not a statement of any “theory” as it did end in a question mark.

 

[harinkj]

Hopefully reconciliation will bring more Tridentine Latin Masses.

:clapping:

Kathie :bowdown:

 

[SummaTheo]

Adonis33:

Your the first person on this thread to mention the Council of Trent.

The Council of Trent also says this:

CANON IX.–If anyone says, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; let him be anathema.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

SummaTheo:

The Council of Trent also says this:

CANON IX.–If anyone says, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; let him be anathema.

And your point is? The fact is that no one says that the Mass can only be celebrated in the vernacular. Latin is an option.

Even after Trent the Mass was done in the vernacular in some places.

 

[SummaTheo]

ByzCath:

And your point is? The fact is that no one says that the Mass can only be celebrated in the vernacular. Latin is an option.

Even after Trent the Mass was done in the vernacular in some places.

When some people quote the Council of Trent only to prove their point. Then when another canon comes up they make an excuse that they don’t have to follow that but you must follow something else… Sorry we’re getting too far off subject.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

SummaTheo:

The Council of Trent also says this:

CANON IX.–If anyone says, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; let him be anathema.

Never said either, so I’m fairly safe from that particular anathema. I never said that it HAD to be audible, though I have said I like it to be audible (and wouldn’t that only apply to the TLM anyway?), nor have I said that it ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue ONLY.

But let’s look at what Trent said: If anyone asserts that the Church’s discipline with regards to her liturgy (and here we assume that it’s the Mass) leads the faithful to impiety, that person is anathema. “Impiety” surely falls within the purview of “faith and morals.” Trent ALSO stated what you asserted above (Canon IX), but the inaudible canon AND the use of the vernacular are clearly matters of discipline, not faith and morals. The Council could not bind a future pope in the matter of a discipline, the Council could only say that any discipline so promulgated could not lead the faithful to impiety. SO…if the Church allows for an audible canon and the Mass in the vernacular, then I feel fairly copasetic in calling for their maintenance.

 

[Marilena]

This is getting off topic again.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

SummaTheo:

When some people quote the Council of Trent only to prove their point. Then when another canon comes up they make an excuse that they don’t have to follow that but you must follow something else… Sorry we’re getting too far off subject.

Summa: My prior post was lighthearted, but this is deadly serious. The poster alledged that the Pauline Rite is “offensive” to Christ. He or she asserted that the normative Mass of the Church, promulgated by the legitimate authority and celebrated by that same authority and his three successors, was “offensive” to Christ. That is an extremely serious charge. The Mass is certainly worthy of defense.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Marilena:

This is getting off topic again.

Merely giving a reasoned response, Marilena. Happy to return to the topic.

Again, let’s hope the SSPX sees the extreme and sinful error of their ways and returns to the bossom of Holy Mother Church. If anyone can pull it off, I bet HH Pope Benedict can.

 

[Marilena]

JKirkLVNV:

Summa: My prior post was lighthearted, but this is deadly serious. The poster alledged that the Pauline Rite is “offensive” to Christ. He or she asserted that the normative Mass of the Church, promulgated by the legitimate authority and celebrated by that same authority and his three successors, was “offensive” to Christ. That is an extremely serious charge. The Mass is certainly worthy of defense.

Remember the moderators warning

General Notice

The topic of this thread is addressing a possible reconciliation of the SSPX group with Rome. It is not to disparage the Novus Ordo Missae. If there are any further remarks of a negative nature about either liturgical rite the thread will be closed. Please limit your remarks to the subject. Your cooperation will be appreciated.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Marilena:

Remember the moderators warning

General Notice

The topic of this thread is addressing a possible reconciliation of the SSPX group with Rome. It is not to disparage the Novus Ordo Missae. If there are any further remarks of a negative nature about either liturgical rite the thread will be closed. Please limit your remarks to the subject. Your cooperation will be appreciated.

Point taken. In justice, I was defending the Mass, not disparaging it. If you look back, Seremina was the one that said the Pauline Rite was “disgusting” and “offensive.”

I seem to remember that you gave him or her one of these in the post that immediately followed:thumbsup: Perhaps you’d like to clarify?

 

[Marilena]

JKirkLVNV:

Point taken. In justice, I was defending the Mass, not disparaging it. If you look back, Seremina was the one that said the Pauline Rite was “disgusting” and “offensive.”

I seem to remember that you gave him or her one of these in the post that immediately followed:thumbsup: Perhaps you’d like to clarify?

Ok, now i got to go back and look… my memory really is pathetic! :banghead:

Are you referring to this: If so, then your correct about me being off topic. I must apply this tomyself as well! Thanks JKirk!

srp643

Does anyone know if I can get a TLM for my wedding if my Church is not currently celebrating the TLM? Wow would that make me a happy guy! I hesitate to indulge in such a fantasy.

Dominus vobiscum.

My reply:

Simply ask your diocese where they hold an approved Latin Mass. Then meet with the priest there, and take it from there
Best wishes to you and yours!

 

[arch_angelorum]

JKirkLVNV:

Again, let’s hope the SSPX sees the extreme and sinful error of their ways and returns to the bossom of Holy Mother Church. If anyone can pull it off, I bet HH Pope Benedict can.

Since when has standing up for the traditions of the Church “sinful” and erronous? I disagree with how Arch. Lefebvre made a traditionalist group without the full consent of the Pope but imagine if he hadn’t? Many people today would not know about the Mass of St. Gregory, of what really Gregorian chant is all about, of a high altar, a low mass, a high mass, and so much more. Every SSPX Mass I’ve been to, they commemorated the Pope and prayed for all bishops. Also, notice how fervent and active the youth in traditional parishes are versus the modern, ones? This past remark was NOT to disparage the NOM just an observation.

 

[thistle]

arch_angelorum:

Since when has standing up for the traditions of the Church “sinful” and erronous? I disagree with how Arch. Lefebvre made a traditionalist group without the full consent of the Pope but imagine if he hadn’t? Many people today would not know about the Mass of St. Gregory, of what really Gregorian chant is all about, of a high altar, a low mass, a high mass, and so much more. Every SSPX Mass I’ve been to, they commemorated the Pope and prayed for all bishops. Also, notice how fervent and active the youth in traditional parishes are versus the modern, ones? This past remark was NOT to disparage the NOM just an observation.

The following is an extract from Ecclesia Dei by John Paul II.

c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.(8)

We all hope SSPX will show true repentence and submit to Rome for a reconciliation.
Anyone supporting SSPX and attending SSPX Masses put their souls in danger.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

arch_angelorum:

Since when has standing up for the traditions of the Church “sinful” and erronous?

I can think of two cases.

When it leads to schism.

And when it leads to holding a matter of discipline up as something higher than it really is.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

arch_angelorum:

Since when has standing up for the traditions of the Church “sinful” and erronous? **The Church, in the Magisterium, possesses in it’s fullness, the truth and the traditions. **I disagree with how Arch. Lefebvre made a traditionalist group without the full consent of the Pope but imagine if he hadn’t? **He would have gotten a great deal of what he had wanted, THAT’S what would have happened!!! He had an agreement with the Holy See, which he signed on one day and then repudiated the next! Really, you need to read the history. **Many people today would not know about the Mass of St. Gregory, of what really Gregorian chant is all about, of a high altar, a low mass, a high mass, and so much more. **I know all about those things and I’ve only set foot in an SSPX chapel ONCE. **Every SSPX Mass I’ve been to, they commemorated the Pope and prayed for all bishops. **Yet they exist in a constant state of disobedience. Recall the parable of the son who assented to do what his father ask, but failed to do so, and the son who refused to do what his father asked, but latter DID obey. According to the Savior, the second son was obedient. **Also, notice how fervent and active the youth in traditional parishes are versus the modern, ones? **No, I cannot attest to that at all. At the Mass I attended, there were about 5-6 teenagers. My Pauline Rite parish has a youth Mass every week that is packed and a very active youth group. **This past remark was NOT to disparage the NOM just an observation.

You seem to have made the observation that disobeying the directive of the Holy Father was a laudable and praiseworthy act. Hardly a Catholic idea.

 

[loyola38]

I voted “yes”. It would be truly wonderful if the Church returned to being as fully Catholic as it once was, and as the SSPX is now.