SSPX

[EcceAgnusDei]

Sounds like a de facto schism already in your heart, sad to say.

Since you have just publicly accused me of schism, please explain and defend your accusation. Thank you.

• PAX

 

[agnes_therese]

Sounds like a de facto schism already in your heart, sad to say.

Prefering the EF, and hoping to be able to continue to attend, hardly seems to be schismatic.

 

[jwinch2]

Sounds like a de facto schism already in your heart, sad to say.

This seems like a very unfair statement to me. The poster above has already stated that if SSPX were to go into schism, they would not be able to go to Mass there any longer. Refusing to attend a Mass they prefer with a group that has gone into schism is the act of a faithful Catholic.

Stating that their diocese has not followed Pope Benedict’s directive to offer the EF Mass to the faithful is not schismatic at all. It is a simple reporting of fact which can be verified or refuted with knowledge of the diocese in question. .

 

[Melchior_1]

I know you meant well, but you are sort of leaving people to their imaginations with statements like:

The SSPX offer the only traditional sacraments within 300 miles of me.

(What’s wrong with the current Sacraments?)

The SSPX offers me an oasis of reverence and tradition in a desert of liturgical abuse and irreverence.

In a 300 mile radius you mean to say that there are ZERO abuse free Masses?

(NOTE: I’m not saying you have a schismatic attitude, just saying that there’s a couple statements there which could make people curious).

 

[Stylites]

. . .please explain . . .

Not just the imagery of unnamed Bishops being “antagonistic”, but the “desert of irreverence and abuse” seems hyperbolic and unreasonable.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

(What’s wrong with the current Sacraments?)

Thinking that the current sacraments have some deficiencies does not make me either a heretic or a schismatic. I have the right to prefer and be attached to the traditional sacraments. And any rational person would have reasons for their preferences and attachments.

In a 300 mile radius you mean to say that there are ZERO abuse free Masses?

I said there are no traditional parishes within a 300 mile radius. I did not mean to imply that liturgical abuse went the same distance. In my city (60 mile radius), an abuse free mass is hard to come by. Those that are abuse free are irreverent and/or banal. The EF is an oasis from all of that, and it is the SSPX that offers the EF.

• PAX

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Not just the imagery of unnamed Bishops being “antagonistic”, but the “desert of irreverence and abuse” seems hyperbolic and unreasonable.

I could offer a litany of the antagonism of these two Bishops to the traditional sacraments, but that wasn’t my point. I left them unnamed on purpose, as to not speak ill of clergy when they cannot defend themselves. And hyperbole does not a schism make.

• PAX

 

[Cider]

I certainly hope there is not a schism. The SSPX offer the only traditional sacraments within 300 miles of me. My Bishop, and the Bishop of the neighboring diocese, are extremely antagonistic towards anything vaguely traditional, despite the Motu Proprio. I know this from personal experience and by talking to priests as well. One priest had to explain what he was “up to” when he started chanting the Agnus Dei in Latin. The SSPX offers me an oasis of reverence and tradition in a desert of liturgical abuse and irreverence. If the SSPX are declared schismatic, there will be no EF for anyone of us in this area to go to.

St. Pius X, pray for us. St. Joseph, pray for us. Blessed Virgin Mary, intercede for us.

• PAX

I was in the same situation before. SSPX was the only TLM offered within hundreds of miles and I lived in a city of 2 million people, (and this was after the motu propio). As a result our SSPX chapel was pretty active. The priests there were holy men and gave some of the homilies I’ve ever heard.

btw, I kindly suggest you consider not rising to the bait here. The rules are pretty strict and it’s possible to be lead into breaking them without intent on your part to do so.

 

[Moore11]

I know you meant well, but you are sort of leaving people to their imaginations with statements like:

(What’s wrong with the current Sacraments?)

In a 300 mile radius you mean to say that there are ZERO abuse free Masses?

(NOTE: I’m not saying you have a schismatic attitude, just saying that there’s a couple statements there which could make people curious).

While I realize the idea that we may never like or “agree” with things in certain Masses that are near us. Some people who are fortunate to live in a nice orthodox diocese seem to discount those of us that don’t. I know within 200 miles if I stay in my diocese that on any given Sunday and in any given parish there will probably be some kind of abuse. Some greater than others. Within 20 miles is an SSPX parish that I cannot attend yet. Heck, I dont even know if I would want to but what I do know is that it is hard to have the two extremes with no middle ground. I dont want to get into a debate to what constitutes an abuse and I also have rarely been to an EF Mass. But with the MP our Bishop found a way to comply by offering it over 200 miles away from our capital city and seat of the Cathedral in a town that is tiny and hard to get to. the overwhelming majority of Catholics in our diocese would have to drive 5 hours just to go to a EF Mass. That is all neither here nor there but what I hope from the SSPX is obedience that can maybe help those of us lost in the disobedience and confusion post VII. Even if we never set foot in the SSPX Churches, perhaps they can bring a much needed voice to some wayward diocese. A win win for all involved.

 

[curlycool89]

Thinking that the current sacraments have some deficiencies does not make me either a heretic or a schismatic. I have the right to prefer and be attached to the traditional sacraments. And any rational person would have reasons for their preferences and attachments.

There’s nothing wrong with having a preference for traditional sacraments. But, believing that the “non-traditional” sacraments are deficient in any way is a schismatic attitude.

Even SP said that the EF should only be made available to those who do not believe that the OF is invalid and not in any way deficient.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Thinking that the current sacraments have some deficiencies does not make me either a heretic or a schismatic. I have the right to prefer and be attached to the traditional sacraments. And any rational person would have reasons for their preferences and attachments.

Yes you do have a right to a preference when the Church allows for it and in this case it does allow for it.

But, you do not have any right to decide that what you do not prefer is deficient in any way. That would be heretical.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Yes you do have a right to a preference when the Church allows for it and in this case it does allow for it.

But, you do not have any right to decide that what you do not prefer is deficient in any way. That would be heretical.

Let me clarify what I mean by deficient: the OF, as commonly celebrated, is deficient to the EF, as commonly celebrated, because of creativity, deformity, and abuse. As evidence, I quote Pope Benedict XVI’s cover letter to his Motu Proprio:

(full text here: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html)

Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.

This is what I mean and is why I prefer the EF. I have never, ever questioned the validity of the OF. But deformation of the liturgy causes me pain, and that deformation is conspicuously missing at the EF.

• PAX

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

There’s nothing wrong with having a preference for traditional sacraments. But, believing that the “non-traditional” sacraments are deficient in any way is a schismatic attitude.

Even SP said that the EF should only be made available to those who do not believe that the OF is invalid and not in any way deficient.

Please see my response above.

• PAX

 

[ProVobis]

Even SP said that the EF should only be made available to those who do not believe that the OF is invalid and not in any way deficient.

Isn’t that what’s implied by “preference for the EF” and thus be an argument for suppressing the EF altogether? For example, I tell my neighbor I drive 30 minutes to Mass and he’ll ask “Why, isn’t the local Mass good enough for you?” What am I supposed to say without sounding disloyal to the local parish? It seems like after whatever I say he can accuse me of heresy and/or schism.

Sounds like a Catch-22 to me and I’m sure the Pope didn’t impose such restrictions.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Let me clarify what I mean by deficient: the OF, as commonly celebrated, is deficient to the EF, as commonly celebrated, because of creativity, deformity, and abuse.

“As commonly celebrated”. . .

I have yet to see such a thing. So I am unsure of how “common” it is.

When you fail to qualify your statement and leave it at the Ordinary From is deficient you are still guilty of error as you lead others to a false belief. If you must state this they you must say what you mean every time you say it.

Best thing would to just state what your preference is and leave it at that. Why must you add the part about deficiency?

Stating a preference shows that you feel there is something deficient for you personally in what you do not prefer but over all, according to the Church, both forms are equally valid and equally efficacious, neither is superior.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

“As commonly celebrated”. . .

I have yet to see such a thing. So I am unsure of how “common” it is.

Well, seeing as the Pope points it out from his personal experience, I would think it would be ok for me to point out the same thing, too.

When you fail to qualify your statement and leave it at the Ordinary From is deficient you are still guilty of error as you lead others to a false belief. If you must state this they you must say what you mean every time you say it.

I did qualify my statement. I will qualify it every time in the future.

Best thing would to just state what your preference is and leave it at that. Why must you add the part about deficiency?

Because when we have a preference, we have reasons for that preference (unless, of course, we are irrational children who say “just cuz”). Asking someone to have a preference and not a reason is asking them to think and act like a child.

Stating a preference shows that you feel there is something deficient for you personally in what you do not prefer but over all, according to the Church, both forms are equally valid and equally efficacious, neither is superior.

The Pope pointed out what he thought the problem was. I agree with him. I hope I am allowed to do that, surely?

And yes, both forms are equally valid. Both forms are equally efficacious IF celebrated according to the rubrics, the instructions, and the mind of the Church as dictated in Her documents, including those of Vatican II concerning the liturgy.

• PAX

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Isn’t that what’s implied by “preference for the EF” and thus be an argument for suppressing the EF altogether? For example, I tell my neighbor I drive 30 minutes to Mass and he’ll ask “Why, isn’t the local Mass good enough for you?” What am I supposed to say without sounding disloyal to the local parish? It seems like after whatever I say he can accuse me of heresy and/or schism.

Sounds like a Catch-22 to me and I’m sure the Pope didn’t impose such restrictions.

Exactly. When we have preferences, we have reasons, and if we are rational humans, then we want to have the best reasons, which means that we actually believe our reasons have some sort of substance to them.

• PAX

 

[curlycool89]

Isn’t that what’s implied by “preference for the EF” and thus be an argument for suppressing the EF altogether? For example, I tell my neighbor I drive 30 minutes to Mass and he’ll ask “Why, isn’t the local Mass good enough for you?” What am I supposed to say without sounding disloyal to the local parish? It seems like after whatever I say he can accuse me of heresy and/or schism.

Sounds like a Catch-22 to me and I’m sure the Pope didn’t impose such restrictions.

It’s not my fault, it’s in Universae Ecclesiae (sorry, I mixed that up before):

1. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.

All you have to say is that you like the EF form of the Mass better than the OF, that’s it. That’s your preference. You can tell the other person that you support their decision to go to the OF Mass.

However, if you’re saying that you couldn’t tell that person that you support their decision to attend an OF Mass, then we have problems. UE clearly says that you can’t be against the validity or legitimacy of the OF.

 

[Rich_C]

Yes you do have a right to a preference when the Church allows for it and in this case it does allow for it.

But, you do not have any right to decide that what you do not prefer is deficient in any way. That would be heretical.

Heterical? That depend on what the poster means by “deficient,” doesn’t it? I think the Pauline sacraments are valid and can be beautiful in their way, but are sometimes deficient in clarity – the wording has ambiguities that can be easily exploited by the heterodox. Conversely, the traditional sacraments so clearly express in words what they signify that they are a catechesis in themselves. I don’t think I’ve said anything heterical, have I? But perhaps “deficient” is a loaded word, insinuating more than the poster meant by it.

At any rate, I admit that we’re getting off-topic and that a real discussion of this is beyond the bounds allowed by CAF.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

It’s not my fault, it’s in Universae Ecclesiae (sorry, I mixed that up before):

All you have to say is that you like the EF form of the Mass better than the OF, that’s it. That’s your preference. You can tell the other person that you support their decision to go to the OF Mass.

However, if you’re saying that you couldn’t tell that person that you support their decision to attend an OF Mass, then we have problems. UE clearly says that you can’t be against the validity or legitimacy of the OF.

I am not against the validity or legitimacy of the OF, nor am I against His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. Section 19 does not apply to me.

• PAX