SSPX & Sunday Obligation

[Frosty]

But it also holds true that Pope Benedict XVI, our reigning Holy Father, has written that the status of the Society is one to be regarded as an internal matter of reconciliation within the Church. .

Maurin: You have made this statement several times now on this forum. Previously you said that Pope Benedict had written this in his covering letter to the Bishops when he issued Summorum Pontificum. I’ve read that letter at least a dozen times and unless my eyes totally glaze over when I get to the part where this is supposed to be stated, I honestly don’t see Pope Benedict saying anything of the kind.
For the sake of clarity, would you please give a specific link to where the Holy Father has actually made this statement? Thank, you.

To the OP. Besides the links on your question available from the forum moderator at the top of the page for the Traditionalist page, here are two other links that you may wish to peruse,

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX.HTM

unavoce.org/Protocol539-99.htm

 

[maurin]

Maurin: You have made this statement several times now on this forum. Previously you said that Pope Benedict had written this in his covering letter to the Bishops when he issued Summorum Pontificum. I’ve read that letter at least a dozen times and unless my eyes totally glaze over when I get to the part where this is supposed to be stated, I honestly don’t see Pope Benedict saying anything of the kind.
For the sake of clarity, would you please give a specific link to where the Holy Father has actually made this statement? Thank, you.

To the OP. Besides the links on your question available from the forum moderator at the top of the page for the Traditionalist page, here are two other links that you may wish to peruse,

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX.HTM

unavoce.org/Protocol539-99.htm

I suppose, frosty, since your links are almost 10 years old, and the Pope’s only about a year, your right, it is time once again for a link to be given:

www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16SummorumPontificum2.htm

 

[JKirkLVNV]

who is saying that “blanket permission from the Holy See” exists?

noone, kirk.

What we are saying is what the Church has allowed: if no other venue for assisting at the Traditional Liturgies and Teachings exist, one may, without sinning, assist at the Society’s Liturgies. We are saying no more than the Church has said.

Why would we want to assist at their Masses? Because some of us will no longer accept teachings from the ambo which contradict the timeless Teachings of the Faith and Morality. It is really THAT simple. If you are not assaulted by contradictory teachings where you live, I envy you. I’m not so fortunate. I also do not desire your understanding or sympathy. Only my Holy Mother the Church’s.

We would hope you would follow your own very good advice a couple of posts above and apply ALL that which His Holiness allows.

That was for a specific individual in a specific case. If you think it applies to the faithful at large, then you’ve made it into a general or blanket permission, which is is not.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Out of love and devotion for the TLM:
youtube.com/watch?v=enWiFcsBqIE

I understand love and devotion for the TLM. It still does not render the offering of the TLM, under those circumstances, as licit. Also, the MP allows the faithful to request LICIT TLMs.

 

[maurin]

That was for a specific individual in a specific case. If you think it applies to the faithful at large, then you’ve made it into a general or blanket permission, which is is not.

kirk,

kirk, it would be encumbent on you to prove your allegation that I am making it “into a general or blanket permission.” My first post on this thread certainly speaks to the contrary.

Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos and Msgr. Perl have said what they have said; conditions, of course, have been attached to the assistance at the SSPX Mass.

Saying it isn’t so does not make it that way.

 

[franklinf]

I understand love and devotion for the TLM. It still does not render the offering of the TLM, under those circumstances, as licit. Also, the MP allows the faithful to request LICIT TLMs.

And what of the specific circumstances where the TLM is not available (such as when the local bishop is hostile to it) or there are liturgical abuses occurring at the local N.O.?It is permissible to attend an SSPX Mass then, provided one isn’t attending due to schismatic thoughts.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I suppose, frosty, since your links are almost 10 years old, and the Pope’s only about a year, your right, it is time once again for a link to be given:

www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16SummorumPontificum2.htm

If you mean the bit about “interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church,” it is by no means clear that the Holy Father is speaking of any more than the kinds disagreements and debates that we see, for example, in these fora, particularly the “traditional” fora, throughout the Church. Pope Benedict does NOT make explicit reference at this point in the MP to the Society and seems to be speaking to the vitirol and heat that often lies between the devotees of either form. With regard to the Society, he states, earlier in the MP, “unfortunately this reconciliation has not yet come about.” He does say this, of the hierarchy’s task: “to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew.”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

And what of the specific circumstances where the TLM is not available (such as when the local bishop is hostile to it) or there are liturgical abuses occurring at the local N.O.?It is permissible to attend an SSPX Mass then, provided one isn’t attending due to schismatic thoughts.

There are provisions in the MP for the faithful to make manifest their desire to the ordinary for the EF. And many things are called “abuses” by “traditionalists” that are not abuses at all, so I would want to know what was meant by that.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

kirk,

kirk, it would be encumbent on you to prove your allegation that I am making it “into a general or blanket permission.” My first post on this thread certainly speaks to the contrary.

Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos and Msgr. Perl have said what they have said; conditions, of course, have been attached to the assistance at the SSPX Mass.

Saying it isn’t so does not make it that way.

Neither does saying that it is so make it so. We have a ruling by a reigning Pontiff that would seem to say otherwise, except in very specific, individual cases. You know, the Holy See released the entire content of the letter to prevent any misunderstandings due to its misapplication. That’s on the link at UnaVoce that has apparently expired.

 

[maurin]

I understand love and devotion for the TLM. It still does not render the offering of the TLM, under those circumstances, as licit. Also, the MP allows the faithful to request LICIT TLMs.

As I understand love and devotion for the Novus Ordo. It still does not render the offering of the Novus Ordo, under circumstances which allow a Priest or Deacon to change the words of the GIRM and the Roman Missal to include gender-neutral language, or to Preach in contradiction to the Teachings of the Faith and Morality.

Also, although the MP allows the faithful to request LICIT TLMs, it certainly does not provide for those Bishops who refuse to offer it. The situation in my Diocese is that. To drive from the southern edge to the northern edge of the Diocese–from where I live to the only Parish in which it is offered–is almost an hour and a half’s drive one way. The cost of gas makes it impossible, as does the fact I work on most Sundays–I assure you that I had done everything in my power to change that fact, to no avail. A group of us even offered to pay 100 percent of all expenses involved in flying down a Priest of the FSSP once a week in order to Celebrate Mass , and the offer was declined by the FSSP.

So Kirk, I find myself in an impossible position: financially I can not afford the expense of the drive each week (I’m a commissioned salesman selling fine jewelry in this economy), nor does my work schedule allow for it. On the other hand the Parishes in this area offer a Novus Ordo Mass which contradict the norms of the GIRM, the Roman Missal in current use, and the Teachings of the Church, especially in the area of Morality.

It is quite an easy thing to say “offer it up, buck it up and go”. quite another to be forced to do so week after week after week.

 

[maurin]

Neither does saying that it is so make it so. We have a ruling by a reigning Pontiff that would seem to say otherwise, except in very specific, individual cases. You know, the Holy See released the entire content of the letter to prevent any misunderstandings due to its misapplication. That’s on the link at UnaVoce that has apparently expired.

Expired? who said so? be fair, kirk. To point out that one link points to a document almost 10 years old and another was written last year does not mean one should be ignored. Don’t make it appear that I said so.

We should agree to disagree that, as you have stated many posts above, that it is all quite clear. It is all quite confusing to many of us, I think.

Before this devolves into a “yes it does, no it doesn’t” ridiculousness, we might consider saying, ‘good day.’

 

[JKirkLVNV]

As I understand love and devotion for the Novus Ordo. It still does not render the offering of the Novus Ordo, under circumstances which allow a Priest or Deacon to change the words of the GIRM and the Roman Missal to include gender-neutral language, or to Preach in contradiction to the Teachings of the Faith and Morality.** Those ARE abuses and there are NO circumstances which allow it. And priests have preached heresy for the entire history of the Church, virtually. Some are corrected, give it up, and are reconciled to the Church. Some don’t, like Arius. We don’t have the freedom to avoid a licit Mass for an illicit one, however. We can do something about heretic priests, just as we can do something about genuine abuses of the TLM (I have confronted priests at the door of the church for abuses that I’ve witnessed, mainly the paraphrasing of the canon of the Mass). **

Also, although the MP allows the faithful to request LICIT TLMs, it certainly does not provide for those Bishops who refuse to offer it. The situation in my Diocese is that. To drive from the southern edge to the northern edge of the Diocese–from where I live to the only Parish in which it is offered–is almost an hour and a half’s drive one way. The cost of gas makes it impossible, as does the fact I work on most Sundays–I assure you that I had done everything in my power to change that fact, to no avail. A group of us even offered to pay 100 percent of all expenses involved in flying down a Priest of the FSSP once a week in order to Celebrate Mass , and the offer was declined by the FSSP.** I don’t know the size of the city where you live, but are you saying that there are NO masses closer to you or are you saying that there are no EF masses closer to you. Are there no OF masses offered “properly” (with the caveat that what is “proper” isn’t always synonymous with “to my taste”)?**
**Either way, no, your obligation is not fufilled unless you are the person to whom the Holy See addressed those letters. You COULD address your own dubium to the Holy See. People do all the time. **

So Kirk, I find myself in an impossible position: financially I can not afford the expense of the drive each week (I’m a commissioned salesman selling fine jewelry in this economy), nor does my work schedule allow for it. On the other hand the Parishes in this area offer a Novus Ordo Mass which contradict the norms of the GIRM, the Roman Missal in current use, and the Teachings of the Church, especially in the area of Morality.** All of them? Every last one of them? How egregious are the abuses? My pastor has a tendency to invite applause for our schola. It isn’t proper, but it’s hardly heretical. I put up with it. **

It is quite an easy thing to say “offer it up, buck it up and go”. quite another to be forced to do so week after week after week.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Expired? who said so? be fair, kirk. To point out that one link points to a document almost 10 years old and another was written last year does not mean one should be ignored. Don’t make it appear that I said so. **No, that isn’t what I said. In my own search for the letter by Msgr. Perle, the UnaVoce link to that letter has expired or is not operative. **

We should agree to disagree that, as you have stated many posts above, that it is all quite clear. It is all quite confusing to many of us, I think.

Before this devolves into a “yes it does, no it doesn’t” ridiculousness, we might consider saying, ‘good day.’

We might, but then souls would be mislead. Catholics are not, under normal circumstances, permitted to fufill their Sunday obligation by assisting at the Masses of SSPX.

 

[franklinf]

There are provisions in the MP for the faithful to make manifest their desire to the ordinary for the EF. And many things are called “abuses” by “traditionalists” that are not abuses at all, so I would want to know what was meant by that.

Yes but that doesn’t mean it is offered. As for abuses - ordinary use of Eucharistic ministers, not being allowed to receive Communion while kneeling / on the tongue, “ad libbing” parts of the Mass, gender neutral terms, etc

 

[maurin]

Kirk, please wrap quotes around the text to which you are responding. It is impossible to reply to anything specific which you have said in the post above.

JKirkLVNV:

We might, but then souls would be mislead. Catholics are not, under normal circumstances, permitted to fufill their Sunday obligation by assisting at the Masses of SSPX.

Now we’re getting somewhere!!! Normal circumstances do not apply in this Diocese. I live in what can be considered the “suburbs” of a largish City. I am telling exactly what you asked above–that the situation in this Diocese is that bad: one Priest made constant reference in his homilies to his “life partner” before his entrance into the seminary (it matters not whether this person was female or male–he implied they lived together, to the glee of many of the Parishioners, and the disgust of others), those Priests who preached on Morality made it clear that in their opinion the Church’s teachings on homosexuality and masturbation ought to be updated. Priests and Deacons routinely expunged most masculine references to the Father, whether in Public Prayer or in the Readings. More than 1 Priest sang Communion “Hymn” solos and bowed to the wild applause of the “audience” when he was done. 1 priest actually uses the Baptismal Pool and Font as a lazy boy recliner prior to Mass as he speaks to the entering Parishioners.

Move me to LVNV and offer me a job, kirk. I’ll be happy to assist at the Reverent Parish of your choice. A Reverent Parish I have not found here.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Just so we are clear on this, I am not unsympathetic. I live under a bishop who is a perfectly nice man, smiles, kisses the babies, but doesn’t like problems. As a consequence, our new “Catholic” high school (which cost 90 million to build, twice the projected 45 million) employs a religion teacher who denies the Real Presence and the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother. Why? Because she herself is a Protestant. The parents complained that the school was “too Catholic” and as they pay big bucks, apparently they were heard. A problem? I’d say so.

My parish is slowly turning around, due to our fairly new, but himself fairly old, pastor (he WAS our judicial vicar). Our masses are becoming more and more in line with what they are supposed to be, but we’ve had problems in the past with non-observance of the GIRM. We’ve had plenty of priests who’ve played fast and loose with the rubrics, puting the stamp of their own egos all over the Mass.

I sympathize, but truth is still truth.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Yes but that doesn’t mean it is offered. As for abuses - ordinary use of Eucharistic ministers, not being allowed to receive Communion while kneeling / on the tongue, “ad libbing” parts of the Mass, gender neutral terms, etc

The use of EMHCs is left to the discretion of the priests. Regardless of what you think of it prudentially, their use does not constitute an abuse.

You are permitted to rec. Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue and if you’re being treated improperly, you should raise a stink about it.

It is never permitted to paraphrase or ad lib any part of the canon and you should raise a stink about it.

I don’t know what translation you mean, but if it is an approved translation, then your feeling about it doesn’t matter, it isn’t an abuse.

 

[maurin]

Just so we are clear on this, I am not unsympathetic. I live under a bishop who is a perfectly nice man, smiles, kisses the babies, but doesn’t like problems. As a consequence, our new “Catholic” high school (which cost 90 million to build, twice the projected 45 million) employs a religion teacher who denies the Real Presence and the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother. Why? Because she herself is a Protestant. The parents complained that the school was “too Catholic” and as they pay big bucks, apparently they were heard. A problem? I’d say so.

My parish is slowly turning around, due to our fairly new, but himself fairly old, pastor (he WAS our judicial vicar). Our masses are becoming more and more in line with what they are supposed to be, but we’ve had problems in the past with non-observance of the GIRM. We’ve had plenty of priests who’ve played fast and loose with the rubrics, puting the stamp of their own egos all over the Mass.

I sympathize, but truth is still truth.

Unfortunately, though, it appears that you are advocating “pray, pay and obey.” I did that for a number of years. My Faith was shattered.

No more, Kirk. I accept it no more.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Kirk, please wrap quotes around the text to which you are responding. It is impossible to reply to anything specific which you have said in the post above.

Now we’re getting somewhere!!! Normal circumstances do not apply in this Diocese. I live in what can be considered the “suburbs” of a largish City. I am telling exactly what you asked above–that the situation in this Diocese is that bad: one Priest made constant reference in his homilies to his “life partner” before his entrance into the seminary (it matters not whether this person was female or male–he implied they lived together, to the glee of many of the Parishioners, and the disgust of others), those Priests who preached on Morality made it clear that in their opinion the Church’s teachings on homosexuality and masturbation ought to be updated. Priests and Deacons routinely expunged most masculine references to the Father, whether in Public Prayer or in the Readings. More than 1 Priest sang Communion “Hymn” solos and bowed to the wild applause of the “audience” when he was done. 1 priest actually uses the Baptismal Pool and Font as a lazy boy recliner prior to Mass as he speaks to the entering Parishioners.

Move me to LVNV and offer me a job, kirk. I’ll be happy to assist at the Reverent Parish of your choice. A Reverent Parish I have not found here.

I am grieved that this is the case, truly. I would gently point out that you DO have rights under canon law and that you should try to avail yourself of those rights (as did the people to whom Msgr. Perle addressed that letter). There are canon law societies that help people who are being victimized by their hierarchs. I believe that they do it for free.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Unfortunately, though, it appears that you are advocating “pray, pay and obey.” I did that for a number of years. My Faith was shattered.

No more, Kirk. I accept it no more.

There are ways to fight and establish your rights. I’m not suggesting that anyone should put up with anything.