SSPX View of the New Mass

[ProVobis]

The difference is that he did not use the word to bash people over the head with it. He was expressing an opinion, one which he has modified since that time. The poor man never expected to be so misquoted in his life.

I don’t think it was a misquote (he used it on more than one occasion) but I think it might have been wrongly interpreted and aroused fear amongst many that moves were being made to eliminate the new Mass. As Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he oversaw all liturgical matters of the Church and worked on ways to reform the liturgy in accordance with Vatican II principles. Of course now Cardinal Arinze is in that position and we can see the great work he is doing to promote the Mass.

 

[maurin]

This should be taken up with the pastor and later with the Chancellor. That’s the proper chain of command.

This may only be taken up by the penitent. No one else has the right to discuss what happens in the confessional between priest and penitent.

This too goes to the pastor and then the chancellor

To this St. Francis de Sales eloquently wrote that he who causes another to lose faith is murderer and he who allows himself to lose faith is suicidal; therefore, they are both guilty.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

You make it sound so easy! I wish I had thought to bring some of these things to the attention of the Chancellor. Or even to become a partt of a group that brought these things to his attention. Or even, I wish I had thought about it at the time, to write a letter, as part ofr the group, to the FSSP asking what were the chances of their presence in the Diocese. Actually, i/we did do all of that. We were met with silence from he Chancery. The FSSP did respon, and in a timely manner, unfortunately with their regrets.

Its true, JR. Until I found the SSPX I was spiritually suicial.

 

[ProVobis]

His use of the word “banal” is thrown around too readily, without recourse to his later thinking. That is what I call unfortunate for everyone.

Actually the word “fabrication” was also used. Or at least it was translated that way. I wouldn’t say “unfortunate for everyone” since some words aren’t so offensive in other languages. A big problem with vernacular, in my opinion.

 

[JReducation]

Actually the word “fabrication” was also used. Or at least it was translated that way. I wouldn’t say “unfortunate for everyone” since some words aren’t so offensive in other languages. A big problem with vernacular, in my opinion.

You’re right about nuances in different languages and even different cultures. The word fabrication, in English has multiple meanings, from something that was created to something that is an outright lie.

Translating is always a problem. Also, one has to be very careful what one translates. An opinion should be translated as an opinion, not a doctrine. A commentary is a commentary, not a teaching. A teaching is an instruction, not a commentary. Finally, a ruling is a mandate, not an opinion. We often read something that has the pope’s name on it and we go crazy with it, instead of asking what it was meant to be.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

You’re right about nuances in different languages and even different cultures. The word fabrication, in English has multiple meanings, from something that was created to something that is an outright lie.

Translating is always a problem. Also, one has to be very careful what one translates. An opinion should be translated as an opinion, not a doctrine. A commentary is a commentary, not a teaching. A teaching is an instruction, not a commentary. Finally, a ruling is a mandate, not an opinion. We often read something that has the pope’s name on it and we go crazy with it, instead of asking what it was meant to be.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Not only this but we must look at the intended audience of what the Pope is saying. After all the Pope actually holds three offices, Bishop of Rome, Head of the Latin Church (Patriarch of the West (still fits even though Pope Benedict dropped this title), and Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church.

Not everything the pope says is intended for the whole Church. Such as his rulings as Bishop of Rome on female altar servers and CITH.

 

[Ockham]

Not everything the pope says is intended for the whole Church. Such as his rulings as Bishop of Rome on female altar servers and CITH.

Was this intended only for the diocese of Rome?

*"This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.[6]

This reverence shows that it is not a sharing in “ordinary bread and wine”[7] that is involved, but in the Body and Blood of the Lord, through which “The people of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of Christ, and in faith and hope foreshadow and anticipate the eschatological banquet in the kingdom of the Father.”[8]

Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which “in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually.”[9] Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: “What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members.”"[10]*

MEMORIALE DOMINI
Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion
Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship

ewtn.com/library/curia/cdwmemor.htm

 

[pnewton]

I don’t think it was a misquote (he used it on more than one occasion) but I think it might have been wrongly interpreted and aroused fear amongst many that moves were being made to eliminate the new Mass…

I am only familiar with the one phrase in an intro to someone else’s book. I have said this a dozen times, but if someone wants to know what the Holy Father thinks about the Mass, there is a whole book on the subject. It is much better than a soundbite.

 

[ProVobis]

I am only familiar with the one phrase in an intro to someone else’s book. I have said this a dozen times, but if someone wants to know what the Holy Father thinks about the Mass, there is a whole book on the subject. It is much better than a soundbite.

I’m not contradicting you but for the record:

summorumpontificum.net/2009/08/archbishop-nichols-versus-cardinal.html

 

[pnewton]

I’m not contradicting you but for the record:

summorumpontificum.net/2009/08/archbishop-nichols-versus-cardinal.html

That looks like the quote from the preface. I will try and chase down the source to see if it happened once or twice.

In any case, Cardinal Ratzinger did write a book on the liturgy, and an excellent one at that. It was very insightful and provides a much more balanced view of the mind of the Holy Father.

amazon.com/Spirit-Liturgy-Joseph-Cardinal-Ratzinger/dp/0898707846

 

[Chris_Jackson]

Hello All.

I just read through the thread and there are several misconceptions on both sides I think I can assist with. Plus there are distinctions that need to be made. Plus, of course, I will give my take. I’m far from infallible but I have several years of experience on this issue and I consider myself a Traditionalist.

I’ll start from the beginning of the thread.

Issues

1.) N.O. Mass is intrinsically sacrilegious - The SSPX article originally linked to is from Fr. Peter Scott and published on the SSPX’s U.S. website as an answer to an FAQ. It states that a Mass said in the ordinary form of the Roman Rite in Latin with reverence is a sacrilege, much less vernacular versions using approved optional practices (CITH, etc).

This is just one of many examples of the Society overstating the Traditional case. One is free as a Catholic to state reasons why they think the Traditional Rite is preferable/ superior to the New. But at minimum, one must believe that approved rites of the Church, especially a Rite said by 98% of Western Rite Catholics along with the Pope is not a sacrilege nor is assistance at it sinful.

It is hard to see how the Society will be incorporated fully into the Church with this stance on the US website. Then again it may disappear as the Jewish articles did after the Bishop Williamson controversy. But the bottom line is that no reconciliation can take place unless the Society repudiates this view and the view that Catholics should stay home on Sunday if the OF is their only option.

However, if they give in on these two points in order to be regularized, what then, makes their position any different from the FSSP? And why then did they wait 22 extra years to reconcile?

2.) Attendance at Society Masses- Society priests do not have faculties to say Mass. The act of these priests saying mass is illicit. That is from the point of view of the priest. From the point of view of the lay Catholic, Rome has given the private opinion in response to certain individual cases that while assistance at a Society Mass in their situation is not recommended, it would not be sinful and would fulfill the Sunday obligation. However in one of these private letters from Rome, the PCED states that Society confessions and marriages are invalid due to lack of jurisdiction except in the case of ignorance. I’m still not aware of any piece of correspondence from Rome stating that it is ok to receive communion at a Society Mass.

3.) Positions of VCII and Tradition are irreconcilable - Pope JPII and Pope Benedict have both said the only way VCII can be interpreted is in the light of Tradition. Archbishop Lefebvre (ABL) himself signed the original VCII documents plus a 1988 agreement whereby he accepted the VCII documents interpreted in light of Tradition. To say the two are irreconcilable, as some do today goes farther than even ABL went.

4.) Society condemned for Traditional beliefs/ practices - The Society was never disciplined for believing as the Church has always believed or worshiping as the Church has always worshiped. The Society has been disciplined for what they reject. They reject the ordinary form of the Roman Rite as sacrilegious, reject liturgical practices allowed by Rome as sacrilegious, believe one cannot fulfill one’s Sunday obligation at the New Mass (if one knows better), etc. Even ABL did not go so far as to say one could not fulfill one’s Sunday obligation at ANY New Mass.

5.) Excommunications - The excommunication issue is a moot point. In any case the Pope “remitted” the excommunications as opposed to “lifted” or “declared never existed”. An office under him said that from that day forward the excommunications ceased having any juridical effect. That said, the Pope is the final interpreter of Canon Law, however he must interpret the law a it stood at the time of the alleged infraction. He can’t change the law after the fact and apply it retroactively. JPII never addressed ABL’s strongest canonical arguments. I would have liked to have seen a trial, but the issue of necessity was never formally addressed. In any case, it is now useless to argue over this since the excommunications are no more.

6.) CITH/ Altar Girls- Catholics are free to work towards petitioning Rome or the Bishops to disallow these practices. They are changeable and there are good reasons against allowing them. That said, it would be wrong to overstate the case and call these practices intrinsically sacrilegious. If you believe the Church could officially allow an intrinsically sacrilegious act to take place at Mass, then you can start to doubt if any number of officially allowed practices are “evil” and you start the slippery slope to private judgment. That said, this does not mean just because Rome allows altar girls and CITH that this means these practices are somehow effective, bear fruit, productive, lead to good results, etc. Rome is not protected from poor prudential decisions. Neither are Catholics bound to attend Masses where these practices are allowed if they can fulfill their obligation at another Mass…

 

[Chris_Jackson]

7.) Cardinal Ratzinger said the New Mass was banal on the spot product- Read the context. In that same forward he states:

“On the one hand, we have a liturgy which has degenerated so that it has become a show which, with momentary success for the group of liturgical fabricators, strives to render religion interesting in the wake of the frivolities of fashion and seductive moral maxims.”

He is talking about liberal liturgical abuses, puppet masses, liturgical dance, etc. This is one extreme.

Then he states the other extreme:

“On the other hand, there is the conservation of ritual forms whose greatness is always moving but which, when pushed to extremes, manifests an obstinate isolationism and leaves, ultimately, a mark of sadness.”

Here he seems to be talking about the Masses of “independent” Traditional communities.

He later states:

"What happened after the Council was totally different: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy.

We left the living process of growth and development to enter the realm of fabrication. There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed and so this was replaced - as if it were a technical production - with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product."

“What happened after the Council” does not mean “The New Mass”. It means the various and countless abuses/ innovations/ novelties perpetrated on the New Mass since 1969.

“Fabrication” and “banal on-the-spot product” refer to the liturgical abuses foisted on the New Mass by “liturgical innovators” in a haphazard fashion instead of a true renewal that develops over time.

Read the full forward here: latin-mass-society.org/ratzshow.htm

Anyway, I hope this helps at least some readers understand some key points of this topic which can be so confusing and lead so many souls to frustration, anger, and despair.

God Bless,

Chris

 

[JReducation]

Was this intended only for the diocese of Rome?

*"This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.[6]

This reverence shows that it is not a sharing in “ordinary bread and wine”[7] that is involved, but in the Body and Blood of the Lord, through which “The people of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of Christ, and in faith and hope foreshadow and anticipate the eschatological banquet in the kingdom of the Father.”[8]

Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which “in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually.”[9] Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: “What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members.”"[10]*

MEMORIALE DOMINI
Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion
Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship

ewtn.com/library/curia/cdwmemor.htm

This goes back to intent. Memoriale Domini is not a piece of legislation. It is intended as a teaching, not law. It certainly deserves our respect. It has mine. But I would not embrace it as law, because it was not intended as such. Were it intended as law, it would have done two things: 1) It would have banned CITH and 2) It would have said so.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

(sigh)

I guess I’ll post this again:

“We might say that … the liturgy was rather like a fresco [in the early 20th century]. It had been preserved from damage, but it had been almost completely overlaid with whitewash by later generations. In the Missal from which the priest celebrated, the form of the liturgy that had grown from its earliest beginnings was still present, but, as far as the faithful were concerned, it was largely concealed beneath instructions for and forms of private prayer. The fresco was laid bare by the Liturgical Movement and, in a definitive way, by the Second Vatican Council. For a moment its colors and figures fascinated us.

adoremus.org/0906BenedictXVI.html
The liturgy is not a fabrication, but an uncovering of a whitewashed fresco.

The cardinal is equally emphatic that the Council did not represent a rupture, but expressed continuity with the Church’s history: “There is no ‘pre-’ or ‘post-’ Conciliar Church”, he writes “There is but one, unique Church that walks the path toward the Lord…”

He deplores that after Vatican II the “new Missal was published as if it were a book put together by professors, not a phase of a continual growth process. Such a thing has never happened before. It is absolutely contrary to the laws of liturgical growth”.10 While this is disturbing, Cardinal Ratzinger nevertheless strongly affirms that “as far as its contents are concerned (apart from a few criticisms) I am very grateful for the new Missal”, noting especially that it contains more prayers, and permits the vernacular.

Those that use Pope Benedict XVI to attack the current liturgy are misrepresenting him, perhaps to the point that they are committing an offense against Truth.

 

[JReducation]

7.) Cardinal Ratzinger said the New Mass was banal on the spot product- Read the context. In that same forward he states:

“On the one hand, we have a liturgy which has degenerated so that it has become a show which, with momentary success for the group of liturgical fabricators, strives to render religion interesting in the wake of the frivolities of fashion and seductive moral maxims.”

He is talking about liberal liturgical abuses, puppet masses, liturgical dance, etc. This is one extreme.

Then he states the other extreme:

“On the other hand, there is the conservation of ritual forms whose greatness is always moving but which, when pushed to extremes, manifests an obstinate isolationism and leaves, ultimately, a mark of sadness.”

Here he seems to be talking about the Masses of “independent” Traditional communities.

He later states:

"What happened after the Council was totally different: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy.

We left the living process of growth and development to enter the realm of fabrication. There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed and so this was replaced - as if it were a technical production - with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product."

“What happened after the Council” does not mean “The New Mass”. It means the various and countless abuses/ innovations/ novelties perpetrated on the New Mass since 1969.

“Fabrication” and “banal on-the-spot product” refer to the liturgical abuses foisted on the New Mass by “liturgical innovators” in a haphazard fashion instead of a true renewal that develops over time.

Read the full forward here: latin-mass-society.org/ratzshow.htm

Anyway, I hope this helps at least some readers understand some key points of this topic which can be so confusing and lead so many souls to frustration, anger, and despair.

God Bless,

Chris

You are correct. That’s why I said that the poor man has been misquoted. His real opinion is best expressed in the leter that accopanied Summorum Pontificum.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

I guess I’ll post this again:

Quote:
“We might say that … the liturgy was rather like a fresco [in the early 20th century]. It had been preserved from damage, but it had been almost completely overlaid with whitewash by later generations. In the Missal from which the priest celebrated, the form of the liturgy that had grown from its earliest beginnings was still present, but, as far as the faithful were concerned, it was largely concealed beneath instructions for and forms of private prayer. The fresco was laid bare by the Liturgical Movement and, in a definitive way, by the Second Vatican Council. For a moment its colors and figures fascinated us.

But is he addressing the liturgy itself or the congregation’s reaction or lack or proper response to it? That seems to be unclear.

As far as the banality of the new Mass, is he referring to its Latin form, a particular vernacular, or the generic OF? I find it difficult to criticize the Latin OF or his own Masses, for example.

 

[Ockham]

This goes back to intent. Memoriale Domini is not a piece of legislation. It is intended as a teaching, not law. It certainly deserves our respect. It has mine. But I would not embrace it as law, because it was not intended as such. Were it intended as law, it would have done two things: 1) It would have banned CITH and 2) It would have said so.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The question is to another member, whether Memoriale Domini was intended for the diocese of Rome only.

When a pope issues a document and includes something like, “this method must be retained” as an obedient Catholic I take that as a ruling.

 

[Layman]

I take a practical view.

Go to an O.F. Go to a few. Observe what occurs, dispassionately. Then go to a TLM. Go to a few. Observe what occurs, dispassionately.

There’s who is in the sanctuary and how they are dressed and behave.
Then there’s the music.
Then there’s what the laity do in each Mass.
Then there’s the prayers in the text itself.
Then there’s the atmosphere of each Mass.

Then make a choice, assuming one is open to you.

 

[malphono]

JReducation;7095827:

This goes back to intent. Memoriale Domini is not a piece of legislation. It is intended as a teaching, not law. It certainly deserves our respect. It has mine. But I would not embrace it as law, because it was not intended as such. Were it intended as law, it would have done two things: 1) It would have banned CITH and 2) It would have said so.

The question is to another member, whether Memoriale Domini was intended for the diocese of Rome only.

I doubt that the SRC (now CDWDS) has ever been in the habit of issuing instructions specifically for the Diocese of Rome. But even so, if it was limited to one Diocese, such would have been clearly stated.

When a pope issues a document and includes something like, “this method must be retained” as an obedient Catholic I take that as a ruling.

I take the document in a similar way. It seems to me that Memoriale Domini is just what it’s title says: an instruction, as is Redemptionis Sacramentum.

 

[ProVobis]

But I would not embrace it as law, because it was not intended as such. Were it intended as law, it would have done two things: 1) It would have banned CITH and 2) It would have said so.

JR, given the state of affairs, I think it would be unrealistic to outright ban CITH today, especially after years of conditioning most to the practice. However, it is clear that the Vatican would like to promote COTT and have local bishops and priests stress this push to return to the traditional form for receiving. Simply saying “but CITH is allowed so we’ll continue doing it” or “the Franciscans do it so why can’t we” won’t help in achieving the practice which the Vatican prefers. It’s all in the approach, IMO.

 

[JReducation]

JR, given the state of affairs, I think it would be unrealistic to outright ban CITH today, especially after years of conditioning most to the practice. However, it is clear that the Vatican would like to promote COTT and have local bishops and priests stress this push to return to the traditional form for receiving. Simply saying “but CITH is allowed so we’ll continue doing it” or “the Franciscans do it so why can’t we” won’t help in achieving the practice which the Vatican prefers. It’s all in the approach, IMO.

This is just my opinion, so please take it as that. I believe that the best thing to do is to leave the question of CITH to each bishop to decide for his diocese, because the priests of the diocese know their people and they report to the bishop through different means: synods, convocations and other.

I agree that the Holy Father has a preference for COTT and is trying to impress upon the clergy and faithful that it can be done without conflict. The key words here are “without conflict.” We don’t have to get into a conflict over this. We can gradually move toward it.

I would not use any religious community, Franciscan, Benedictine, Carhtusian or other as the reason for doing this or that in a parish. We have to remember that what is allowed to a religious community and what is forbidden has a reason that may be applicable only to them. In other words, that reason my not exist outside of the community. For example, among Franciscans, brotherhood is their primary vocation. Every man enters as a brother and remains a brother for the rest of his life. During the course of events, many of those brothers are ordained priests, but as far as the order and the Church are concerned, they are still brothers. Their vows do not change. The rule does not change. Their rights and obligations do not change They have superiors who are not priests to whom they must submit with the same obedience and fidelity that they should have if the superior were a priest. In a context such as that, where there distinctions between the ordained and the non-ordained are minimal, certain things make sense that do not make sense in a parish with 3,000 people from all walks of life.

Another example would be the Carthusians. In their tradition, they have the Fathers and the Brothers. They have a long tradition of distinction between the two groups. The Fathers are hermits and the brothers are more monks than hermits. The Fathers have always governed the house and the brothers have always taken care of the Fathers. The relationship there is very different than it would be in a Franciscan house. That being said, the relationship there is also very different from the relationship between the laity in a parish and the parish priest. Taking care of the parish priest is not part of the laity’s vocation. So I would not expect to see the same rules for prayer, liturgy and daily life in a parish that I would find in a Charterhouse.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF