SSPX View of the New Mass

[JReducation]

(the appeal to canons 1321-4 dealing with situations of necessity/emergency: posting #59 on this thread)

Does anybody have a citation for this? I have tried to study this issue for many years, and I have never come across a direct comment by Pope John Paul II on the topic. I think that people are simply assuming that he must have made this judgment. But as I wrote in posting #59, he (and others) simply ignored the objection.
I think this is erroneous, Bro JR. Can you give a citation on this thesis? Yes, the pope can change canon law unilaterally. This is normally done via a Motu Proprio: “A statement of the pope’s personal initiative that carries the force of law”. But while Canon Law stands he is still bound, in elementary justice, to follow it. The Pope is the custodian of the Church: he does not own it. the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, not the Mystical Body of the Pope. Therefore even the Pope must operate along certain lines.

This is indeed one of the sticking-points between what we will call “the traditionalists” and those who reject the trads’ position. The SSPX are among the staunchest defenders of the papacy, as was shown in the PIlgrimage of Tradition during the Holy Year of 2000, which visibly impressed Pope John Paul II.
I agree with your take on delegated authority, Bro JR. I raise the point of the newspaper article condemning Mgr Lefebvre because the Cardinal issuing it was not in the chain of authority delegated to do so. There is, or was, a widely-repeated notion that Mgr Lefebvre was excommunicated by the pope. I reply that this was not the case. You will notice also in Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum that the decree lifting the excommunication identifies it as having been issued by Cdl Gantin, not Pope John Paul II. I am not saying here that Pope John Paul II disagreed with Cdl Gantin’s decree; I am merely reminding readers of the facts.

There are two points that I’d like to speak to.

My wording my have been poor, but my understanding is correct. Ignore may be a sloppy word. The pope does have the authority to decide when and when not a canon appplies. There are precedents for this. I’ll give you one that comes to my mind quickly . . . the founding of the Dominicans and the Franciscans. The two communities were founded within a year of each other, the Dominicans in 1208 and the Franciscans in 1209.

At the time, the law said that new rules for religious life were banned. All new religious orders had to adopt one of the existing rules and write constitutions that would adopt them to their situation, without changing the rule itself. In other words, they were found to the rule, but the founder could add whatever was not in the rule to help his new order.

St. Dominic approaches Pope Innocent III in 1208 and is told that his rule cannot be accepted, because of the law. St. Dominic adopts the Rule of St. Augustine and effectively makes the Dominican Order an Augustinian community.

St. Francis approaches Pope Innocent III in 1209. He is told the same thing. St. Francis makes his case that his rule was not inspired by men, but is of divine inspiration, “No one told me what to write, except the Most High God.” The Cardinals argue that there is no new revelation since the death of the last Apostle. Twenty-four hours later, Pope Innocent comes back and says that the canon does not apply, because Francis’ rule is truly of Divine Revelation and he approves it and 14-years later, Pope Honorius again overrules the law and says the same thing. The rule is of Divine inspiration and he puts a papal bull on it so that no one, not even the Franciscans can ever touch edit it. That was the last rule that was ever approved in the Catholic Church. All of the other rules ever approved have the legal force of statutes, not binding rules, because Canon Law still says that no new rules may be presented.

That’s an example of why I meant when I used the word “ignore”. I’m sorry for the sloppy word. But I hope the example is helpful.

Now to the second point. I believe that we’re making more out this “who issued the excommunication” than needs be. Through history excommunications have been issued by many people, including local bishops, as was the case with Joan of Arc. Only those that were declared invalid by the pope were rescinded. The others remained in effect. Pope John Paul’s silence on the matter is also a matter of justice. If he had believed that the excommunication was unjust, then in justice he would have been bound to say so. He remained silent. Given that we’re dealing with a man whose life has been studied scrupulously and has been found to have lived a heroic life of Christian virtue, this is no small point that could be unknown to the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of the Saints, to the Cardinals who review their findings and to Pope Benedict who declared Pope John Paul II to be Venerable. Therefore, one can safely assume that John Paul’s silence on the matter was an act of justice and the excommunication was justified and valid.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[numealinesimpet]

There are two points that I’d like to speak to.

My wording my have been poor, but my understanding is correct. Ignore may be a sloppy word. The pope does have the authority to decide when and when not a canon applies. There are precedents for this. I’ll give you one that comes to my mind quickly . . . the founding of the Dominicans and the Franciscans. The two communities were founded within a year of each other, the Dominicans in 1208 and the Franciscans in 1209.

At the time, the law said that new rules for religious life were banned. All new religious orders had to adopt one of the existing rules and write constitutions that would adopt them to their situation, without changing the rule itself. In other words, they were found to the rule, but the founder could add whatever was not in the rule to help his new order.

St. Dominic approaches Pope Innocent III in 1208 and is told that his rule cannot be accepted, because of the law. St. Dominic adopts the Rule of St. Augustine and effectively makes the Dominican Order an Augustinian community.

St. Francis approaches Pope Innocent III in 1209. He is told the same thing. St. Francis makes his case that his rule was not inspired by men, but is of divine inspiration, “No one told me what to write, except the Most High God.” The Cardinals argue that there is no new revelation since the death of the last Apostle. Twenty-four hours later, Pope Innocent comes back and says that the canon does not apply, because Francis’ rule is truly of Divine Revelation and he approves it and 14-years later, Pope Honorius again overrules the law and says the same thing. The rule is of Divine inspiration and he puts a papal bull on it so that no one, not even the Franciscans can ever touch edit it. That was the last rule that was ever approved in the Catholic Church. All of the other rules ever approved have the legal force of statutes, not binding rules, because Canon Law still says that no new rules may be presented.

That’s an example of why I meant when I used the word “ignore”. I’m sorry for the sloppy word. But I hope the example is helpful.

But I submit that your example proves my point. Here we have the pope of the day using his authority to over-rule and to change the law. But that is precisely what did not happen with Mgr Lefebvre and the other 5. Similarly (but not identically) to what you quote for S. Francis, Mgr Lefebvre invoked the authority of God over the “positive law” regarding consecrating bishops. Instead of following the example of the pope you have quoted, and saying “This does/does not apply, for the following reasons”, Pope John Paul II simply spoke (in his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei) as though the excommunication were a fait accompli, thereby failing to address the perfectly legitimate appeal of Mgr Lefebvre based on the very law as promulgated by Pope John Paul II himself. The Vatican could not have it both ways.

Now to the second point. I believe that we’re making more out this “who issued the excommunication” than needs be. Through history excommunications have been issued by many people, including local bishops, as was the case with Joan of Arc. Only those that were declared invalid by the pope were rescinded. The others remained in effect. Pope John Paul’s silence on the matter is also a matter of justice. If he had believed that the excommunication was unjust, then in justice he would have been bound to say so. He remained silent. Given that we’re dealing with a man whose life has been studied scrupulously and has been found to have lived a heroic life of Christian virtue, this is no small point that could be unknown to the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of the Saints, to the Cardinals who review their findings and to Pope Benedict who declared Pope John Paul II to be Venerable. Therefore, one can safely assume that John Paul’s silence on the matter was an act of justice and the excommunication was justified and valid.

Much as I would like to agree, the facts of history do not allow me to do so, Bro. This is the pope who kissed the Koran, who presided over a prayer meeting in Assisi where the Blessed Sacrament was removed from a Catholic altar so that an idol of Buddha could be put in its place (Cdl Ratzinger refused to attend the second Assisi outrage) … presided over numerous Outdoor Papal Masses in which the Blessed Sacrament was trampled into the ground, who ignored innumerable anguished petitions from the Faithful all over the world documenting horrendous abuses up to and including paedophilia, homosexuality in seminaries and sataninc covens presided over by an archbishop. This was all done on his watch. As you explain, these things were done by people under his authority, and he can no more be exonerated than it can be claimed that the decree of excommunication of the traditional bishops was not his responsibility. We cannot have it both ways. He believed in a “consensual” style of leadership which never allowed him to confront disobedient senior clerics whom the pre-Vatican popes would have instantly expelled. This was common knowledge. As a school teacher I know that there are times when you can negotiate a consensus, and times when you must lay down the law. Pope John Paul II taught, but he did not use the rod when he had a right and indeed a duty to do so.

We are talking about a pope who was utterly courageous, utterly devoted to Our Lord and His Blessed Mother, who was capable at times of preaching over the heads of his erring bishops (as I witnessed in London in 1982) – yet who was capable of disastrous prudential decisions. Hence I do not think we are able to read too much into his inaction over the Lefebvre case.

 

[pnewton]

To get back to the original quoted statement of Fr Scott, SSPX. I am not the only regular attender at SSPX Mass centres who would disagree with his statement, not to mention the tone. It is not, so far as I know, the official position of the SSPX,…

I appreciate your interjection here, and it is something we need to bear in mind. It would be easier to dismiss the position if it did not appear on the SSPX website. Yet I think we all know that nothing derives authority from the internet. I will consider your words.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I appreciate your interjection here, and it is something we need to bear in mind. It would be easier to dismiss the position if it did not appear on the SSPX website. Yet I think we all know that nothing derives authority from the internet.

No, it’s a fair point,** pnewton.** Trads very often complain about inaction from the Vatican, on the grounds that “silence gives consent”. Nobody can have it both ways. As to the statement that “the Novus Ordo is intrinsically evil”: that is very dangerous talk. Because what is the “intrinsic reality” of the Mass if not our Sacramental Lord? In the language of S. Thomas Aquinas, I am prepared to say that the wording of the Novus Ordo, even the definitive version in Latin, is an “accidental” evil: a wrongness as to the trimmings, the clothing of the Substance: but I would like to see the SSPX publicly renounce the phrase “intrinsically evil”.

 

[Lamafacaja]

And what changed about 40 years ago which opened the doors to such crazy stuff?

The Bishops changed.

 

[pnewton]

In the language of S. Thomas Aquinas, I am prepared to say that the wording of the Novus Ordo, even the definitive version in Latin, is an “accidental” evil: a wrongness as to the trimmings, the clothing of the Substance: but I would like to see the SSPX publicly renounce the phrase “intrinsically evil”.

Then all may well be lost with the SSPX. The Holy Father has made it clear that there is no question going back. We are not going to see the Catholic Church just drop the Mass are return to the TLM, at least anywhere in the foreseeable future. And acceptance of the current Mass was one of the conditions of regularization. That condition might change, but then so might the position of the SSPX on this.

 

[numealinesimpet]

…so far as I know, the official position of the SSPX … is that the Novus Ordo Missae 1969, said in Latin according to the rubrics, must be presumed valid pending a statement to the contrary by the pope or an ecumenical council; but that it is unhelpful, in fact deleterious to the Faith. Some, but not all, of the reasons for this assertion are given in the so-called Ottaviani Intervention: see fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html. The vernacular translations can be seen to be faulty along very definite lines: the downgrading of the notion of expiatory sacrifice etc etc. …

For example, the ICEL “translation” of the Normative 1969 Missal has this passage: “And the offering of your priest Melchisedech”. But the actual Latin text reads “and that which Thy High Priest Melchisedech offered unto Thee, a holy Sacrifice, an Immaculate Victim”.

And the prayer immediately before Communion has, in the ICEL, “and I shall be healed”. But the Latin is “et sanábitur ánima mea” = “and my soul shall be healed”.

Not to mention the notorious “translation” of “pro multis (for many)” as “for all”.

 

[ProVobis]

For example, the ICEL “translation” of the Normative 1969 Missal has this passage: “And the offering of your priest Melchisedech”. But the actual Latin text reads “and that which Thy High Priest Melchisedech offered unto Thee, a holy Sacrifice, an Immaculate Victim”.

And the prayer immediately before Communion has, in the ICEL, “and I shall be healed”. But the Latin is “et sanábitur ánima mea” = “and my soul shall be healed”.

Not to mention the notorious “translation” of “pro multis (for many)” as “for all”.

Very important distinctions.

It affects theology and it’s sad that people seem to buy any translation as gospel truth.

 

[James224]

From your Link:

Someone should tell the author that the original language was greek, and that Latin constituted a change in the words of institution after several centuries of worship in what we now call (mistakenly) the “Latin” rite. The move to Latin from Greek happened out of Africa in fact, not from with in Rome. Thus, whatever point the author was trying to make is negated by the fact that the “original latin” was in fact, already a translation of the original greek.

I think now more than ever we need to catechise the lay about this true history of the Mass. I see a wonderful revival of traditional Western piety happening, which is terrific. Unfortunetly however, going hand in hand with that is a temptation… To erroneously believe that our current worship is in anyway insufficient or at the very least substandard to the latin.

I love the latin personally, very much so. More over I think that at a minimun we should bring certain elements of the latin mass into the OF, like communion rails. But who am I to tell the holy mother church she’s wrong to pulmigate the mass we have? Not only do I think she’s not wrong, but more over since I only get one latin mass a month, and am exploring a (far in the future) possible vocation as a deacon, I’ve decided to sign up as a EMHC.

I agree. I have a traditional mind and always have had one. I love the Latin Mass but also attend the Ordinary Rite. A good book to read on the Mass is “The Mass. A Study of the Roman Liturgy” by Fr Adrian Fortescue. It’s not an easy book to read but full of information. He says Latin entered the Liturgy around 200ad in Africa (as you said). The most interesting part revolved around the Canon. Somewhere between 400ad and 600ad the Canon was rearranged and they do not know how it was done.

I know this isn’t the subject at hand. I sympathize with the SSPX and hope for some kind of reunion. In obedience to Rome, I could not accept their position on everything but I don’t see how we can expect a reunion with the Orthodox without first with the SSPX. Their attitudes are so Catholic. It’s hard for me to sum up my thoughts in one post so I will say that I pray for a reunion.

 

[pnewton]

For example, the ICEL “translation” of the Normative 1969 Missal has this passage: “And the offering of your priest Melchisedech”. But the actual Latin text reads “and that which Thy High Priest Melchisedech offered unto Thee, a holy Sacrifice, an Immaculate Victim”.

The Latin text uses “Thee” and “Thy”?

 

[numealinesimpet]

Originally Posted by numealinesimpetar

For example, the ICEL “translation” of the Normative 1969 Missal has this passage: “And the offering of your priest Melchisedech”. But the actual Latin text reads “and that which Thy High Priest Melchisedech offered unto Thee, a holy Sacrifice, an Immaculate Victim”.

The Latin text uses “Thee” and “Thy”?

I won’t rise to it! I won’t!

 

[pnewton]

Originally Posted by numealinesimpetar

I won’t rise to it! I won’t!

You should have said sink to it.

 

[numealinesimpet]

You should have said sink to it.

I certainly won’t float any more suggestions on this issue…

 

[ProVobis]

I certainly won’t float any more suggestions on this issue…

Your good intentions are noted, though. “Thou” and “thy” certainly sound more dignified in addressing the Almighty than the less solemn “you” and “your” pronouns in the English.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Your good intentions are noted, though. “Thou” and “thy” certainly sound more dignified in addressing the Almighty than the less solemn “you” and “your” pronouns in the English.

It’s interesting how the “Polite ‘you’” spread from Rome, when Caesar was addressed with the plural form, all over Europe, ousting the original distinction so that the former plural was now a polite form, and the singular a form used for children, animals and very close friends. English dropped the singular between 300 years ago & the present time, depending on the local dialect. Only Irish Gaelic, on the Western Fringe, has retained the full force of singular/plural pronouns with no connotations of intimacy/respect.
Prayers to The Almighty in the Western European languages were always in the Respectful form; (e.g. ‘vous’ in French) but after Vatican II the casual form (e.g. ‘tu’ in French) was adopted. These were not random changes; a certain mental attitude was allowed to get the upper hand.
English has almost come full circle and reversed the original meaning:
“Thou” and “Thee”, originally singular, then later casual/intimate, have become associated with the Bible and set prayers, and now in most places these words are used only, if at all, for respectful prayers to God.
Interesting.
I make no special point. Except to show one more example of how ‘The Changes’ in the 70s were, firstly, not actually mandated by Vatican II & secondly, were of a very definite pattern. They were by no means random.

 

[JReducation]

Your good intentions are noted, though. “Thou” and “thy” certainly sound more dignified in addressing the Almighty than the less solemn “you” and “your” pronouns in the English.

The pronouns “thou” and “thine” did not just disappear from the English language. They disappeared from the Romance languages as well. The problem with the English is that the forms “thou” and “thine”, if it can be called a problem, soiund archaic. If you go to any place where they speak Spanish or Italian, you will see “you” and “your” and it will sound perfectly fine. The “vos” and “vosotros” is very awkward, because it does not fit with contemporary grammatical structures.

This is not a liturgical issue. It’s a grammatical issue. Grammar does change.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[numealinesimpet]

The pronouns “thou” and “thine” did not just disappear from the English language. They disappeared from the Romance languages as well. The problem with the English is that the forms “thou” and “thine”, if it can be called a problem, sound archaic. If you go to any place where they speak Spanish or Italian, you will see “you” and “your” and it will sound perfectly fine. The “vos” and “vosotros” is very awkward, because it does not fit with contemporary grammatical structures.

This is not a liturgical issue. It’s a grammatical issue. Grammar does change.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

It’s a bit of a red herring in English, where, as you say, ‘thou’ etc is mostly classed as archaic. But in the languages where a living distinction is made between casual/intimate and respectful, the post-Vatican II prayers have dropped the respectful form and adopted the casual/intimate form. I for one deplore this development.

My original ‘translation’ (‘thy High Priest Melchisedech’ etc) was influenced by my remembering the usual translation of the Tridentine Missal, and no special point was being made there. The real point, of course, is the dropping of entire phrases in what is supposed to be a translation. Whose idea was this? Who knew about it? Who authorised it?

And as an interesting side issue, I have always noticed that the pre-1960 English Protestant prayerbooks have a most pronounced archaic/obsolete flavour: “the comfortable words” etc etc, whereas the Latin has a strictly timeless flavour. Nobody could guess what century “Adeste fidélis” was written. The translations were secondary and were being updated quietly without any fuss as the living language evolved. But after the mid 60s, a sub-agenda began to manifest itself: a rather insulting casualness about the Sacred Things (not to mention people).

 

[malphono]

The pronouns “thou” and “thine” did not just disappear from the English language. They disappeared from the Romance languages as well. The problem with the English is that the forms “thou” and “thine”, if it can be called a problem, soiund archaic. If you go to any place where they speak Spanish or Italian, you will see “you” and “your” and it will sound perfectly fine. The “vos” and “vosotros” is very awkward, because it does not fit with contemporary grammatical structures.

This is not a liturgical issue. It’s a grammatical issue. Grammar does change.

Yes, grammar does change and yes. this is probably not a real “liturgical” issue, but …

In the Romance languages, the “tu” form is alive and well. It may be considered “informal” these days, but nonetheless it is still the second person singular. And isn’t that what “thou” etc in English is considered?

 

[MarkThompson]

It’s a bit of a red herring in English, where, as you say, ‘thou’ etc is mostly classed as archaic. But in the languages where a living distinction is made between casual/intimate and respectful, the post-Vatican II prayers have dropped the respectful form and adopted the casual/intimate form. I for one deplore this development.

I can’t tell if you’re being serious, but (1) “thee/thou” is the informal, not formal, address, while “you” is the formal address – a common misconception, but definitely a misconception; (2) languages with such a distinction, like Spanish, have always used the informal/intimate form (e.g., tu) to address God; and (3) Latin does not contain any such distinction,* so claiming that it is vital to retain in English smacks of blind antiquarianism.

*Edited to add: and to the extent such a distinction evolved in mediaeval Latin, nevertheless the informal form tu/te has always been used for God, as you’ll notice for instance in your Missale (“Te igitur, clementissime Pater . . . .”).

 

[numealinesimpet]

Yes, grammar does change and yes. this is probably not a real “liturgical” issue, but …

In the Romance languages, the “tu” form is alive and well. It may be considered “informal” these days, but nonetheless it is still the second person singular. And isn’t that what “thou” etc in English is considered?

Yes, ‘tu’ in French doubles for ‘intimate’ and ‘singular’, never for ‘plural’. Grandparents in the West Midlands of England were still in 1980 saying “thee bist” for "you (singular) are’ (cf German du bist)… in Lancashire (NE England) in 1950 the older generation would still have said “Didst thou shut th’door?” – singular only. In Cork, “ye” is in full use as a plural, ‘you’ being either singular or plural. In parts of Northern Ireland and Australia, ‘youse’ is common for a plural of ‘you’. I’m sure there are other variations. In ‘standard’ english, to my knowledge, ‘thou’ is only ever used in set prayers, and hence has acquired a semi-archaic, but respectful, connotation, unlike ‘tu’ in French. I can’t answer for Spanish, Bro JR.