SSPX

[bpbasilphx]

**The last paragraph in the quote points to the fact that SSPX will not recognize the new rite as valid and obstinately refuse to celebrate it. **

**Eastern Catholic Priests are not required to celebrate the Novus Ordo.

Seems to me SSPX could recognize the NO as valid–but not be required to celebrate it, either.**

 

[maurin]

**The last paragraph in the quote points to the fact that SSPX will not recognize the new rite as valid and obstinately refuse to celebrate it. **

**Eastern Catholic Priests are not required to celebrate the Novus Ordo.

Seems to me SSPX could recognize the NO as valid–but not be required to celebrate it, either.**

and here, basil, is a point on which we can agree totally. The SSPX recognizes this ‘new mass’ as valid but protestantized, a sort of ‘frankenstein’ creation (my words), and not an organically developed Mass, as is the Traditional Mass of the Latin Rite and and the Divine Liturgies of the Eastern Churches. As such, the faithful have a moral obligation to reject the disasters inherent in most of the new Masses as celebrated.

Joysong, being absolutely sincere as well as consistent, is once again showing herself to be the misled.

 

[Joysong]

That’s quite true, BP, but the point is they label it heretical and have taught that anyone who attends it is committing serious sin.

Benedict clearly stated in the letter:

In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

Those who attend the extraordinary form of the rite are not expressing the views of the SSPX, that the OF is heretical, and they validly celebrate the latin rite of tradition. This is the difference between TLM and SSPX.

 

[Joysong]

Maurin,

Your words clearly demonstrate why the Church does not approve of people attending SSPX liturgies, for the danger that they will absorb the doctrines of the founders who caused the schism. You were once a very faithful TLM-er, and now you have sold out and become radical in your beliefs, alleging that the OF is a “frankenstein.” Good heavens, may God forgive you.

And you furthermore allege that there is "moral obligation to reject the disasters inherent in most of the new Masses as celebrated," confirming that these priests have convinced their faithful that it is a serious sin to attend the OF liturgy.

I am so very grieved to observe this unfortunate transition in you.

 

[603304529]

Maurin,

Your words clearly demonstrate why the Church does not approve of people attending SSPX liturgies, for the danger that they will absorb the doctrines of the founders who caused the schism. You were once a very faithful TLM-er, and now you have sold out and become radical in your beliefs, alleging that the OF is a “frankenstein.” Good heavens, may God forgive you.

And you furthermore allege that there is "moral obligation to reject the disasters inherent in most of the new Masses as celebrated," confirming that these priests have convinced their faithful that it is a serious sin to attend the OF liturgy.

I am so very grieved to observe this unfortunate transition in you.

Joysong,

I would suggest you do some reading: “The Ottavianni Intervention” would be a very good start, to appreciate just what is the Novus Ordo Mass. You should educate yourself on the Old Mass, and the butchered Mass that is “Pope Paul’s Mass”. Valid, but sadly lacking in so many ways.

You may also considering listening to some of Michael Davies’ talks. They are available on the net, if you do a google for them: “Michael Davies mp3” should get you something.

Regards
Mick

 

[Joysong]

I appreciate your attempt to convert me but I have seen some very heretical statements by Michael Davies on the “danger” websites that I won’t mention here.

Nor do I have any desire to proselytize anyone else to the OF liturgy, as each of us has our own spiritual attraction to one or the other.

That being said, would you mind reading with understanding the words of the Pope stated in his letter? Unless you are one of those people who do not accept the teaching authority of the Church? Assuredly, there have been difficulties, as the Pope mentioned in the letter, and as the dissenters love to point out, but in essence, the ordinary form of the liturgy is here to stay by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So you are not debating me, Mick, but the Lord Himself.

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

 

[russell007]

I think even most people in the church are confused on how to interpret…Can a Roman Catholic in good standing satisfy his or her Sunday obligation by attending an SSPX mass.

It apears to me Msg Perl says its ok to go to satisfy your obligations at SSPX mass as long as you dont have any schismatic reasons for going if you want to experience the 1962 mass you can Just dont have dont do it because your disagree with the church.

On the over hand Peter Vere states from his interpretation the SSPX mass while being valid its illicit and you cannot satisfy your Sunday obligation

It just gets more confusing the more I read the less I understand.

Can. 844 §2 – Can a Catholic Approach a SSPX Priest for the Sacraments?
by Pete Vere

As a canonist involved within the Traditionalist Movement, I am often asked whether or not a Catholic in good standing with the Church can lawfully approach a priest or bishop of the SSPX for sacraments. Most often, I am posed this question in reference to Can. 844 §2 which states as follows:

Can. 844 §2 - Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ's faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

One notices that the word “Church” in the above canon is capitalized. The canon does not say that Catholics may receive the aforementioned sacraments from “non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid.” In interpreting this canon, it is important that we keep in mind the following legal norms outlined in the First Book of the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 16 §1  Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by that person to whom the legislator entrusts the power of authentic interpretation.

This means that the canons contained within the code are legitimately interpreted by the Holy Father (and his successors) who legislated the Code, as well as those whom he has delegated to interpret the Code. Secondly, we must keep in mind the following:

Can. 17This means that the canons must be understood according to both the text and the context in which they find themselves.  In cases of doubt, one should seek references elsewhere as to what was the purpose of the law, and the mind of the legislator in passing the law.  In the case of the present Code, the legislator is the Holy Father.

Now if we apply these general norms to Can. 844 §2, we see that the intention of the legislator, within the context of the canon, is to permit Catholics under certain circumstance to receive the the sacraments from non-Catholic ministers of Churches in which the sacraments are valid. This is not a permission to receive the sacraments from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches the sacraments are valid. The difference being that the sacraments must be valid owing to the denominational Church to which the non-Catholic minister belongs, and not merely from the validity of the minister’s ordination. For example, one could not receive the sacraments from a priest validly ordained within the Catholic Church who later defected from the Catholic Faith and now ministers within the Episcopalian ecclesial communion. Nor could one approach a validly-ordained non-Catholic minister who ministers the sacraments independently of the jurisdiction of a Church in which these sacraments are valid.

(Copyright 1999 Peter J. Vere)

 

[RyanML]

I appreciate your attempt to convert me but I have seen some very heretical statements by Michael Davies on the “danger” websites that I won’t mention here.

Nor do I have any desire to proselytize anyone else to the OF liturgy, as each of us has our own spiritual attraction to one or the other.

That being said, would you mind reading with understanding the words of the Pope stated in his letter? Unless you are one of those people who do not accept the teaching authority of the Church? Assuredly, there have been difficulties, as the Pope mentioned in the letter, and as the dissenters love to point out, but in essence, the ordinary form of the liturgy is here to stay by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So you are not debating me, Mick, but the Lord Himself.

Michael Davies (RIP) was hardly a heretic! He worked very closely with the Una Voce organization and with Roman authorities for the cause of Traditional Catholicism. His work was praised by prelates such as Cardinal Stickler and the head of Ecclesia Dei, Cardinal Hoyos, and Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI ) And the Holy Spirit may have guided the Church in Liturgical reform, but He did not guide the widespread disobedience that has given us banal liturgies without solemnity or reverence. The Pauline Masses we see celebrated today are the furthest thing from what the Second Vatican Council had envisioned. God bless!

 

[Joysong]

Excuse me, Ryan, but my words did not call Michael Davies a heretic. I stated that there were heretical statements [allegedly] made by him, who knows, on danger-rated websites that are prone to distort facts in order to promote an agenda. I was distressed by what I read, and whether or not these statements were truly his own words, I can’t say. It was sufficient for me to avoid him.

The invitation to read his words has little to do with SSPX, so I don’t see why I would want to accept that invitation, anyway, and since I am not a regular attendee at TLM masses, I have little inclination to read some of the attacks that are made against the ordinary form. Even if his words were not misquoted, and happen to be truly his own, I saw enough not to read any more of it.

 

[603304529]

Michael Davies (RIP) was hardly a heretic! He worked very closely with the Una Voce organization and with Roman authorities for the cause of Traditional Catholicism. His work was praised by prelates such as Cardinal Stickler and the head of Ecclesia Dei, Cardinal Hoyos, and Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI ) And the Holy Spirit may have guided the Church in Liturgical reform, but He did not guide the widespread disobedience that has given us banal liturgies without solemnity or reverence. The Pauline Masses we see celebrated today are the furthest thing from what the Second Vatican Council had envisioned. God bless!

Thank-you Ryan.

The late Michael Davies also had some very convincing arguments that the SSPX were not in fact schismatic. Do a search on youtube, to see a talk given by Mr Davies, where he gives a very good argument.

I have attended SSPX chapels my entire life, and can honestly say that I have never been encouraged to have a schismatic attitude, so I don’t know where this drivel about “attending an SSPX Mass is fine, as long as you don’t have a schismatic attitude” came from.

Does the same apply to an OF Mass, that its ok to attend, as long as one doesn’t have a generally non-Catholic attitude?

We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.

 

[Joysong]

The late Michael Davies also had some very convincing arguments that the SSPX were not in fact schismatic. Do a search on youtube, to see a talk given by Mr Davies, where he gives a very good argument.

:newidea: Ah, so that’s why you wanted me to do a google search! So I could believe Michael Davies in lieu of listening to the Pope. Makes sense now. You wouldn’t be proselytizing, would you?

I have attended SSPX chapels my entire life, and can honestly say that I have never been encouraged to have a schismatic attitude, so I don’t know where this drivel about “attending an SSPX Mass is fine, as long as you don’t have a schismatic attitude” came from.

The ‘drivel’ came from the Magisterium. If your clergy did not attempt to imbue the faithful with schismatic propaganda, then you have found a better chapel. Many tip over the edge and become hostile and downright dissident with Vatican II and the OF liturgy.

Does the same apply to an OF Mass, that its ok to attend, as long as one doesn’t have a generally non-Catholic attitude?

Surely you are joking?

 

[603304529]

:newidea: Ah, so that’s why you wanted me to do a google search! So I could believe Michael Davies in lieu of listening to the Pope. Makes sense now. You wouldn’t be proselytizing, would you?

The ‘drivel’ came from the Magisterium. If your clergy did not attempt to imbue the faithful with schismatic propaganda, then you have found a better chapel. Many tip over the edge and become hostile and downright dissident with Vatican II and the OF liturgy.

I’ve attended SSPX chapels all around the world; never come across schismatic propaganda. Just a desire for the return to tradition in the Church.

Read the Ottavianni Intervention. It’ll do you good.

 

[RyanML]

:newidea: Ah, so that’s why you wanted me to do a google search! So I could believe Michael Davies in lieu of listening to the Pope. Makes sense now. You wouldn’t be proselytizing, would you?

The ‘drivel’ came from the Magisterium. If your clergy did not attempt to imbue the faithful with schismatic propaganda, then you have found a better chapel. Many tip over the edge and become hostile and downright dissident with Vatican II and the OF liturgy.

Surely you are joking?

Unfortunately, many Masses celebrated in the Ordinary Form smack of protestantism. I’ve been to Episcopalian services that look more Catholic. If you want to see the OF celebrated according to the mind of the Church, watch the Mass on EWTN. When the priest faces “ad orientam” and latin and Gregorian Chant have “pride of place” and the altar rails are put back in place, then we will begin to see the liturgical reform of Vatican II in action. God bless!

 

[pnewton]

I knew this thread couldn’t stay on topic more than a page. The information provided earlier was solid and documented. No, one is not excommunicate for attending the SSPX chapels, in case no one remembers the question, unless one does so specifically as an act of schism from the Church, a rather doubtful propostion.

As to the wisdom of such an act, that has been done to death here and the horse will never arise. Are they schismatic? That too has gone back and forth and I do not know of any converts to the other’s point of view.

Is maurin trying to recruit and convert? No, I really don’t think so. I have seen him post for a while and I have seen posters come and go who have actively prosylitzed for the SSPX here. He is just giving his point of view, like any of the rest of us.

 

[RyanML]

I knew this thread couldn’t stay on topic more than a page. The information provided earlier was solid and documented. No, one is not excommunicate for attending the SSPX chapels, in case no one remembers the question, unless one does so specifically as an act of schism from the Church, a rather doubtful propostion.

I’ve never seen an SSPX thread that stayed on topic, lol! But seriously, in all of my experience with those who attend chapels of the SSPX, none of them were interested in separating themselves from the Church. They genuinely believed that the best way to live the faith and raise their families in the faith was to attend the chapels and schools of the SSPX. I do think that when there are apostolates for the Latin Mass that are approved then we must go there as opposed to the Society’s chapels. The old and very tired argument that Rome is just trying to keep the traditionalists happy and then pull the rug out from under them is, in my opinion, unfounded paranoia

 

[maurin]

Maurin,

Your words clearly demonstrate why the Church does not approve of people attending SSPX liturgies, for the danger that they will absorb the doctrines of the founders who caused the schism. You were once a very faithful TLM-er, and now you have sold out and become radical in your beliefs, alleging that the OF is a “frankenstein.” Good heavens, may God forgive you.

And you furthermore allege that there is "moral obligation to reject the disasters inherent in most of the new Masses as celebrated," confirming that these priests have convinced their faithful that it is a serious sin to attend the OF liturgy.

I am so very grieved to observe this unfortunate transition in you.

One should first read and then understand what another has written before feigning the high road, joysong. You have absolutely misunderstood my post.

But that certainly is your modus operandi.

If anyone else misunderstood what I wrote, please feel free to ask for clarification.

 

[Walking_Home]

The OP’s question was answered in the first reply. It was not a call for those who tend to sling mud at the mention of the SSPX to come out of the woodwork.

 

[Joysong]

They only came out of the woodwork when erroneous information was posted after the correct reply was submitted to the OP. See post #19. I challenge you, W_H, to demonstrate that anyone has “slung mud.” If there was any mud-slinging, it might be the poster who called the OF a frankenstein. Let’s be fair, ok?

 

[RyanML]

They only came out of the woodwork when erroneous information was posted after the correct reply was submitted to the OP. See post #19. I challenge you, W_H, to demonstrate that anyone has “slung mud.” If there was any mud-slinging, it might be the poster who called the OF a frankenstein. Let’s be fair, ok?

I wonder if the poster who called the OF a “frankenstein” was referring to the Mass of Paul VI in the way it was implemented, as opposed to its promulgated form? There is a difference. The Pauline Mass was certainly an innovation and a break with the tradition of the Church as it was formed by a committee rather than through organic development, but i certainly wouldn’t call it a “frankenstein”. But that term is quite appropriate for much of what goes on in parishes these days. But the pendulum is swinging and there is a genuine “reform of the reform” taking place. I hope to see the day when the priest returns to the altar ad orientam and latin and gregorian chant or truly given “pride of place” and the Holy Eucharist once again properly respected and adored. God bless!

 

[LeroyCRHP]

Maybe it’s me, but I think anyone referring to our beautiful mass in this way is disrespectful. It’s sad to see maybe another split in action. I went to the 11:30PM mass, Dec 31st, last night and was brought to tears at the impact and beauty of the mass.

I believe the mass as celebrated by almost 1/6th of the world’s population is known and fully approved by the Bishops and Pope.

PS: I don’t like these us vs them threads.

and here, basil, is a point on which we can agree totally. The SSPX recognizes this ‘new mass’ as valid but protestantized, a sort of ‘frankenstein’ creation (my words), and not an organically developed Mass, as is the Traditional Mass of the Latin Rite and and the Divine Liturgies of the Eastern Churches. As such, the faithful have a moral obligation to reject the disasters inherent in most of the new Masses as celebrated.

Joysong, being absolutely sincere as well as consistent, is once again showing herself to be the misled.