SSPX View of the New Mass

[maurin]

Could you show where the SSPX are rushing to be lectors, Eucharistic Ministers, etc?

Priests performing the duties of Priests? Now there’s a concept. Have we tried that in the last 40 years?

 

[maurin]

It is difficult if not impossible to reconcile Rome’s current positions with those taught by all the pre-Vatican II popes. Things like ecumenism and religious liberty were condemned by all the pre-Vatican II popes but now are praised by Rome. How does one reconcile this? And how does the Vatican create a brand new rite of mass modeled after the protestants and then for 37 years try to outlaw the true Catholic mass? These are questions that simply must be asked. The SSPX has been told to give in and compromise with Rome, which really means compromising with the world. However, all the positive changes that have occurred since the end of the council (the indult, Ecclesia Dei, Summorum Pontificum) would not have occured if the SSPX and given in earlier.

This is just another crisis like many the Church has seen before and eventually she will get through this one as well. The Church will come back to tradition, it is only a matter of time, and the new mass will be yet another mistake relegated to the dust bin of history.

God bless,
Charlie

if one cares to be honest, Charlie, one cannot possibly reconcile the inconsistencies, nor can one honestly state that there exists the same Teaching,

 

[rben20]

No, please rben, do you read what you yourself write? You have equated not having faculties with being outside the Church. Show us, please, document, paragraph and line, where the Pope draws the same conclusion. And then try to make sense for us how assisting at a Mass offered by the Society fulfills our Sunday obligation.

This is all quite Brave New World. We’re not at war with Eurasia. We’ve never been at war with Eurasia. Oy is right, malphono.

Your straw man arguments are of no avail Maurin. You can continue to put words in my mouth all day but I have already told you that the society is part of the Church but has no faculties…so no, if there is no canonical status something is missing…this is partial and there is work to be done. Why do you think they are having talks Rome to begin with? For tea and good times?

Going to a SSPX does fulfill Sunday Obligations because the Eucharist is done by a Priest however the Mass is illicit. The same priest could not have marriages or confessions done validly for lacking faculties. This poses a huge problem for me as much as I love the old rite of the Church.

 

[rben20]

Things like ecumenism and religious liberty were condemned by all the pre-Vatican II popes but now are praised

Crimsonflyboy,

I’m interested in this assertion. If you could please provide information backing this claim.

P.S. The whole discussion of whether the SSPX is in or out of the Church misses the point altogether. No one can point to any heresy or doctrinally unsound teaching of the SSPX so instead it is claimed that they are outside of the Church. But outside for what reason? For teaching the same things that the Church always taught before the council? Or for celebrating the mass of all time instead of a mass invented in the 1960’s? Just ask yourself what has the SSPX done so wrong?

The trouble starts I suppose when they go against what the Church teaches under the Pope. The society says that the Church has changed its teaching and has become heretical and what not…these are not charges to be treated lightly. How can a group claim to be more Catholic than the Pope who instituted the New Mass and continues to hold the Mass for all? How can one go against the Pope for the sake of tradition and frown on the OF which has brought people to Jesus? It sounds too pharisee like…for the sake of tradition to forget others and how beneficial it is to bring others to Christ through the OF.

 

[At_Trent]

Priests performing the duties of Priests? Now there’s a concept. Have we tried that in the last 40 years?

It never ends maurin. How many times have we had to have someone explain it ?

Thread title says SSPX ! All sense of reason vanishes to make way for an opportunity

 

[At_Trent]

They are different topics by the SSPX. Thanks though for the suggestion…my bad

np, just keep in mind the Bishops have had the excommunications lifted, the pope pointed out the good in them in his letter to all Bishops after some raised Hates about it, and they are in talks to try and work it out. SSPX priests pray Mass in churches in Rome nowadays. The SSPX is reported to have an office in the Vatican to use when one or more of the clergy is there.

H.H. has knocked a hole in the wall. But so many want to piece it back together. The SSPX has basically asked 4 things and has been granted 3 by H.H.

Why can’t we pray for success in the efforts of both sides and give it time ?

 

[maurin]

Your straw man arguments are of no avail Maurin. You can continue to put words in my mouth all day but I have already told you that the society is part of the Church but has no faculties…so no, if there is no canonical status something is missing…this is partial and there is work to be done. Why do you think they are having talks Rome to begin with? For tea and good times?

Going to a SSPX does fulfill Sunday Obligations because the Eucharist is done by a Priest however the Mass is illicit. The same priest could not have marriages or confessions done validly for lacking faculties. This poses a huge problem for me as much as I love the old rite of the Church.

Really? I put words in your mouth? Did a different rben post the following?

With readings like this, I wonder how they will ever become a part of the Church again…

sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__traditional.htm#attendnovusordo

Come now, rben, who is fooling whom? If you are retracting your original statement, or if you are admitting to a poor choice of phrasing, all is well. But when your original statement is there for all to see, please do not accuse me of putting words in your mouth. Is that appropriate to ask? I believe it is at least a reasonable request.

 

[rben20]

To tell you the truth, I am very mixed up on the whole issue. I love the old rite of the Church and want the authentic teaching of the apostles. I however am lost in this battle of modernists and traditionalists. Its hard to discern who is telling the truth so when I side with the Pope…I am told that I am still wrong. But even if I wanted the traditional rite and teaching of the Church, it is not available to me through any means for there is no Mass in my area and I am not aware of the books that clearly articulate the Faith as taught by the Apostoles and the Church until the Council of Vatican II.

 

[rben20]

Maurin. It is only a misunderstanding on your part as I have already explained canonical status is still not granted to the SSPX. What more do you want? You keep avoiding the fact that SSPX priests don’t have faculties with a silly word battle that has little to do with the main subject that I believe I have cleared myself already in my initial response to your first post.

Originally Posted by rben20
Well Maurin, I don’t mean to put the SSPX outside like the protestants or anything like that. Realize that they do not have faculties so they are in a way outside and not fully part of the Church. Apparently they are teaching a different Church then the one today…not my words but the Society’s.

I’m done playing word games with you.

 

[pnewton]

First, because of the innacuracy of placing the Society outside of the Church, and second, the insulting analogy of he palsied limb.

Likewise, I find this excerpt, from the article, insulting:

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.

 

[maurin]

I am sorry you find it insulting, pnewton. I am sincere in my apology.

I find it frank, especially in view of the way the Mass is celebrated in virtually every Parish I have been to in the Archdiocese and the diocese just north of here. going to several Parishes is an understatement in my search for a reverently celebrated Mass.

 

[maurin]

Maurin. It is only a misunderstanding on your part as I have already explained canonical status is still not granted to the SSPX. What more do you want? You keep avoiding the fact that SSPX priests don’t have faculties with a silly word battle that has little to do with the main subject that I believe I have cleared myself already in my initial response to your first post.

I’m done playing word games with you.

Deo gratias! Because you are the only one playing. Retract your original satement or admit to a poor turn of phrase. Otherwise you are fooling noone. All of your protests do no erase your opening statement which places the Society outside of the Church-- in your own words. You equated not having faculties, which I have neitther denied nor sidestepped, with being outside of the Church from your opening post.

I agree. Quite silly.

 

[ConstantineTG]

To tell you the truth, I am very mixed up on the whole issue. I love the old rite of the Church and want the authentic teaching of the apostles. I however am lost in this battle of modernists and traditionalists. Its hard to discern who is telling the truth so when I side with the Pope…I am told that I am still wrong. But even if I wanted the traditional rite and teaching of the Church, it is not available to me through any means for there is no Mass in my area and I am not aware of the books that clearly articulate the Faith as taught by the Apostoles and the Church until the Council of Vatican II.

Here’s the only thing you need to know. The keys were given to Peter, and Peter passed it on to his successors. So believe the one who has the keys. The authority from Jesus trumps any claim of any other group.

 

[JM3]

P.S. The whole discussion of whether the SSPX is in or out of the Church misses the point altogether. No one can point to any heresy or doctrinally unsound teaching of the SSPX so instead it is claimed that they are outside of the Church. But outside for what reason? For teaching the same things that the Church always taught before the council? Or for celebrating the mass of all time instead of a mass invented in the 1960’s? Just ask yourself what has the SSPX done so wrong?

Scandal? CCC 2284 - 2287

Schism? CCC 2089

 

[rben20]

Here’s the only thing you need to know. The keys were given to Peter, and Peter passed it on to his successors. So believe the one who has the keys. The authority from Jesus trumps any claim of any other group.

Refreshing. Thank you Constantine. Common sense prevails or so Our Lord and His Vicar.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Refreshing. Thank you Constantine. Common sense prevails or so Our Lord and His Vicar.

I’ve heard this from someone, that Christ made a promise to Peter that the Gates of Hades will not prevail against His Church. On this came the doctrine of infallibility, where our Pope will be protected from teaching errors. As you will see, most of those that went into schism are falling into error. The Old Catholics separated because they refused to believe this. See where they are now? They’re giving their valid Holy Orders away to those who would seek to try to ordain women. Anytime you are given a choice between anybody and the Vicar of Christ, you always choose the Vicar of Christ.

 

[Crimsonflyboy]

“I’m interested in this assertion. If you could please provide information backing this claim.”

Do you mean the claim that ecumenism and religious liberty were condemned by the pre-Vatican II popes? If so read Pope Blessed Pius IX’s sylabus of errors from 1864. If you mean that post-Vatican II popes have celebrated these things then take a look at the meeting of religious leaders in Assisi in 1984 which was put together by Pope John Paul II.

“The trouble starts I suppose when they go against what the Church teaches under the Pope. The society says that the Church has changed its teaching and has become heretical and what not…these are not charges to be treated lightly. How can a group claim to be more Catholic than the Pope who instituted the New Mass and continues to hold the Mass for all? How can one go against the Pope for the sake of tradition and frown on the OF which has brought people to Jesus? It sounds too pharisee like…for the sake of tradition to forget others and how beneficial it is to bring others to Christ through the OF.”

The SSPX has gone against no teachings of the Popes, except if you mean the teaching of the second Vatican council. But remember that the Popes are above the councils and any teaching from a council must be consistent with Catholic teaching. The problem arises when the council started propagating teachings which were inconsistent with Catholic teachings. Further more the SSPX is not trying to be more Catholic than the Pope, rather the SSPX is trying to be Catholic. And to be Catholic means to agree with the Catholic teachings of all-time. The Catholic Church crosses all national borders and generations as well. If a teaching of the Church was correct 1,000 years ago then it is true today and it will be true in another 1,000 years. If a teaching of the Church is correct in the USA then it is also true in Europe. The SSPX just wants to keep the Church on the right path and consistent with the sacred tradition laid down by our Lord and the Church fathers.

God bless,
Charlie

 

[Ockham]

Refreshing. Thank you Constantine. Common sense prevails or so Our Lord and His Vicar.

And if following the successor of Peter as Christ’s representative on Earth was actually followed we wouldn’t have Communion in the hand or altar girls right now.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

And if following the successor of Peter as Christ’s representative on Earth was actually followed we wouldn’t have Communion in the hand or altar girls right now.

If the Pope ruled that all had to follow his example then yes you are right, but as he has not seen fit to do so you are wrong.

Nice try though.

 

[Crimsonflyboy]

Scandal? CCC 2284 - 2287

Schism? CCC 2089

Simply disobeying the Pope is not Schism. And there is no scandal is remaining faithful to the traditions of Holy Mother Church. The Vatican Council II was declared to be pastoral rather than ecumenical, this means that there is nothing in the Council which a faithful Catholic must believe. There was not a single dogma declared nor was there a single anathema or heresy declared. This begs the question what was the purpose of the council? The council tried to address this issue a number of times but came up empty each time. All we got were vague answers about the purpose of the Council that left more questions than answers. But there simply is no Schism and the only scandel is what the liturgical revolutionaries have done since the end of the Council. The mass that is being celebrated throughout the world now is simply not the mass that Catholics celebrated for centuries. That is the real scandal.