Its interesting that you bring that up. I was doing some reading last night and came across this in the Rule of Saint Benedict:
That is a heavy burden to bear and helps a bit to put things into context regarding how Bishop Fellay may be feeling. Also, it explains a bit how you are likely feeling at being the superior of the FFV.
Being a superior is not a job that anyone with a rational mind wants. Ultimately, the person who goes to hell if everyone under you fails, is you. The Church holds superiors morally and personally responsible for guiding their subject toward the Church, not away. If you guide them away, you’re more culpable than they are. They are culpable for following you. No one has the right to act contrary to the Holy See on such a matter. The Holy See is not asking people to sin. The person in charge is responsible for misleading, which is a greater moral charge.
For that reason, in some communities, such as the FFV, once the superior speaks, the conversation is over. Too many opinions only create confusion. The superior has the power to let the conversation go as long as he feels that it’s productive and then bring it to a close. His decision is final. He has the authority to overrule the vote the community except in a chapter. But if you’re voting on whether to have an EF or an OF, that’s not a capitular decision. The superior makes the final choice based on what he believes to be the best for his community. If he makes the choice knowing that it’s not good for the community, he sins gravely.
I certainly hope there is not a schism.
At the end of the day, there are going to be some who will walk away from the Vatican and will be declared to be in schism. But if Bishop Fellay rules that the Society will agree to the Vatican’s terms, that number should be very small.
If it goes the other way, where the SSPX decides against the Preamble, then people in your situation will be forced into a moral dilemma. You go with the Church, regardless of the masses in your area or you cut yourself off from Peter in order to attend a mass that you prefer.
I know my decision already. I will go where ever Peter goes.
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.
The problem with your wording here is not your preference, but the tone is condescending. You may not be hearing yourself. No individual Catholic is an arbiter of reverence. If something is objectively against the rules, then it’s against the rules. Even then, some things are against the rules, but the infraction is so small, that it takes nothing away from the reverence of the mass. For example, the priest does not purify the chalice and paten at the altar. Against the rules? Yes. Takes away from the reverence of the mass? No. It’s not part of the mass. It’s simply something that has to be done, because you can’t leave the chalice and paten with the Eucharistic elements on them.
The other problem is the use of the word deficient. The Holy Father and the SCDW have never used the word deficient, because the sacraments either are or are not. There is not such thing as a sacrament that is more efficient here and less efficient there. The Holy Father used the correct wording. Some people took the liberty of getting creative. That creativity does not take away from the efficaciousness of the sacrament. It is confusing and can be disrespectful to the sacrament and the congregation, but the sacrament loses nothing. I believe that’s where the thread went over the cliff.
We need to learn to speak as the Church speaks and always use her wording, not our own. I cringe when I see or hear people say NO or TLM. That’s not how the Church refers to the two forms of the mass. Novus Ordo was the subtitle of the first missal in the Pauline Form. It was never the name of the form. It was always the Roman Mass, as in the Latin Church. TLM, doesn’t say much. Traditional Latin Mass or Tridentine Latin Mass. There is no such a mass. There is only one mass, many rites and within those rites there are forms. In the Latin Church we have several rites. In the Roman Rite we have two forms, the Extraordinary and the Ordinary. Within those forms we have less familiar forms that are not important for this discussion. It’s simpler to say the EF and OF. We often set ourselves up for situations by using labels. People who say, “the old mass” drive me crazy too. I didn’t know that we had traded it in as if it were a car.
