Sspx

[itsjustdave1988]

Some years ago, I had never been to a traditional Latin Mass. I remember my Mom sharing her memories of it very fondly. She really appreciated the Latin Mass when we lived in Germany and didn’t understand the language. When she attended the Mass, she felt at home since she finally understood what they were saying!!So I looked up on the internet for a place in Colorado Springs that offered a Latin Mass. To be clear, I believe the current editio typica of the Roman Missal is valid and it is the liturgy I grew up with and enjoy the most. However, I wanted to experience more of the beautiful Catholic tradition. So I found the following fraternal order in town that offered the Latin Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal:

Servants of the Holy Family
servi.org/

I wrote them an email asking which Roman Missal they use, so that I could obtain it and do some study before attending the Mass. I want to know what’s going on, so that I can better appreciate it. I also asked if they were part of the diocese of Colorado Springs.

Fr. Simons, S.S.F., wrote me backear David,

We are not part of the diocese of Colorado Springs, but **we are in union with Rome. **You are welcome to attend our Mass. If you would like to call for details I would be happy to speak with you. [phone number given] [emphasis added]

We look forward to hearing from you.

Father Kevin D. Simons, S.S.F.
I was fully intending upon calling and finding out more details when a little voice inside thought they may actually be schismatic and yet telling me they are not. So, I wrote the Diocese of Colorado Springs to ask about this fraternal order and their status with Rome. This is what the diocese wrote to me:**The Servants of the Holy Family are not in communion with the Diocese of Colorado Springs (and the Roman Catholic Church at large), although they claim to be.
**
The Immaculate Conception Latin Mass Community IS, however, a community recognized as part of our diocese. It is led by a priest of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter [FSSP], Fr. Fritschen, and is dedicated to the Latin Mass of 1962 Roman Missal. They were given permission by the Holy See to say the Mass according to the 1962 Missal on a regular basis.

If you wish to contact Fr. Thoma Fritschen, his number is [provided] he will be happy to forward additional informtation to you upon request.

This disturbed me. So I went to the library and looked at the Official Catholic Directory (2003) to look up whether Fr. Simons was listed or whether the Servants of the Holy Family or S.S.F. were listed. They were not. I did, however, find that Fr. Fritschen and the F.S.S.P. were listed.I wrote back Fr. Simons and told him that two things disturbed me. The fact that they are not listed in the Official Catholic Directory and that the Diocese claimed they are NOT in communion with Rome. I assured him that I believed there are at least two sides to every argument, so I asked him why they believed they were in communion with Rome. I suggested that if they were truly in communion, they may want to provide a letter showing that fact to the Diocese of Colorado Springs and submit their fraternal order and names to be published in the Official Catholic Directory.

I told him that I would be contacting Fr. Fritschen and participating in the next Latin Mass with him. I invited Fr. Simons to join us if he wished.

continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

Suffice it to say, Fr. Simons was not very pleased. He saidear David,

I did not know when I wrote to you that I would be asked to defend my status in the Church. The bishop’s office is lying to you, but of course, you believe them rather than us, or else you would not have written to them.

Fr. Simons
Now why would the Bishop’s office be lying? They certainly are not suppressing the Latin Mass, as it is offered daily in the diocese. It seemed quite clear to me that Fr. Simons is part of a schismatic movement and it was he that was lying to me about their status with Rome. Why would they need to lie to me to trick me into joining them?I wrote back to Fr. Simons:
Fr Simons,

I meant no offense. I merely want to attend a Latin Mass that is not in schism with the Holy See. I’m confident that Bishop Sheridan is in communion with Rome. Whether the Servants of the Holy Family are or not is none of my concern. You don’t have to defend yourself to me at all. I just wanted to let you know of my intentions and why. Whether or not you include your fraternal order and your name in the *Official Catholic Directory *is entirely up to you.

God bless,

Dave
For those wanting to attend a Latin Mass that is not in schism with the Catholic Church, I suggest you do a little research first. The *Official Catholic Directory *is very handy. By all means, contact your diocese. They may not be part of the diocese (eg. Franciscans), but they ought to be in communion with the diocese. If they are not in communion with the diocese then there’s something wrong.

Bottomline: Not all those who say they are in communion with Rome actually are.

 

[Kirane]

itsjustdave1988:

Because it was. For many, efficaciously…
If you choose ignorance, I can’t help you.

If you are going to call names, instead of answering the question honestly, this would appear to be a violation of the rules at Catholic Answers. I don’t know why the Catholic Answers allows Catholics to break these rules of insulting people who are not Catholics, but not vice versa.
The fact is that the word efficaciously was not mentioned in the Catechism of the Council of Trent with reference to this question. This is something which you have added, and incredibly you accuse anyone of ignorance if they go along with the Catechism of the Council of Trent. It is a way of avoiding the question, by simply calling someone who refers to a document of the Council of Trent as ignorant. But it really does not answer the question. It is what is called an ad hominem argument. You simply attack my character, instead of answering the question. You also falsely accused me of questioning the validity of the Mass, which I did not. This was a completely false allegation on your part.
According to the catechism of the Council of Trent:
:When He added, " For many," He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles. With reason, therefore, were the words , “For all”, not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle ( Hebrews ix.28 ) when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many," and also of the words of our Lord in John: " I pray for them ; not for the world I pray, but for those whom thou hast given me, because they are thine"

( John x v ii . 9).
The Catholic Church has changed its teaching on this point since it now says that it is OK to use the words for all, whereas before it said it was with reason that the words for all were not used.

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

Please remember to review your posts for tone and content before hitting submit.

Thank you and God bless-

Rachel

 

[countertenor]

Technically Latin Masses couldn’t have been forbiden, only the old rite of the mass could have possibly been forbiden. Even when the NO was enforced the priests still had the ability to say it in Latin if they chose, just not the Old Mass

I sing for a Latin mass almost every weekend, it’s just a NO mass and not a tridentine mass…though on occasion we also do the tridentine mass. I think people need to draw a distinction between language used and the rite itself. I remeber reading somewhere that even the tridentine mass was said in a language other than latin in on place in europe, while it was still the normal rite used. (of course this was a special circumstance)

StMarkEofE:

Well I personally know for a fact that Latin Masses were forbidden in our diocese after VatII and that only the NO was to be celebrated. So at this time it was Illegitamate to attend or celebrate a Latin Mass. In fact even mentioning the Latin Mass would get your stares of puzzlement, and questions as to why do you want go back to something so anachronistic as the “old” Mass. It was ONLY after severe pressure was put upon the Vatican by a lot of traditionalists that the Vatican loosened their rules regarding the Latin Mass. If it wasnt for these groups the Latin Mass would only exist in history books.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Kirane:

If you are going to call names…

What name did I call you?

The fact is that the word efficaciously was not mentioned in the Catechism of the Council of Trent with reference to this question. This is something which you have added, and incredibly you accuse anyone of ignorance if they go along with the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

You neglect the fact that the Roman Catechism is a post-councilar summary of doctrine, the nature of which is to teach the “rudiments of the faith.” (cf. Introduction, Roman Catechism). I did not add to the Catechism, but instead told you the doctrine taught by the Catholic Church both before Trent and after Vatican II, which shows that your “change in doctrine” thesis absurd.

If you read the link I provided, you’d know what the Roman Catechism says on the issue. From Fr. McCarthy’s article, the Roman Catechism states,

"…we must confess that the Redeemer shed his blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race.

Furthermore, from the same article, it shows that before the Council of Trent, St. Thomas Aquinas taught from his Commentary on the Four Books of Sentences of Peter the Lombard:

“In addition, the expression pro vobis et pro multis effundetur is taken concerning the shedding as regards sufficiency or as regards efficacy. If, as regards sufficiency, thus it was shed for all, not only for many; but if as regards the efficacy which it has only in the elect”

It is a way of avoiding the question, by simply calling someone who refers to a document of the Council of Trent as ignorant.

In your post (#25) you didn’t ask a question, but made an accusation, erroneous as it was. Thus, I’m not avoiding a question but correcting your faulty accusation.

Nor, did I call you ignorant. I stated that if you choose ignorance I cannot help you. If you choose not to read the articles I provided, then you choose to remain in ignorance about what the Church even before Trent taught about the atonement’s sufficiency for all and efficacy for many. This doctrine has not changed after Vatican II as you erroneously state.

You also falsely accused me of questioning the validity of the Mass, which I did not.

You said it was an “essential part” of the Mass. I’ve showed that “pro multis” is not an essential part of the Mass, as many ancient formulas omitted it altogether. Whether you knew it or not, “essential part of the Mass” means that without this essential part, the Mass is invalid. That’s what “essential” means in Catholic theology. I recommend instead of thrusting out words you don’t completely understand in relation to the Catholic liturgy in an attempt to make accusations against Catholic teaching, you do some more reading about the religion.

The Catholic Church has changed its teaching on this point since it now says that it is OK to use the words for all, whereas before it said it was with reason that the words for all were not used.

The Catholic Church has affirmed that the English translation is to be understood to mean that which the Latin text means, in accord with the quote I’ve given above from the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith (1974). Thus, your thesis is absurd.

The Church herself in the Latin editio typica has “pro mutlis.” My Roman Missal, published in the USA still has “pro mutlis.” If this was some great USA conspiracy to change doctrine then they aren’t doing a very good job by printing the Latin as “pro multis” in my Roman Missal.

The Church herself explicitly says the approved translation is stipulating that the meaning of the translation is to be understood in accord with the mind of the Church as expressed by the original Latin text, which says “pro multis.” So, from a liturgical view, the english translation is imprecise, but affirmed to mean what the Latin states (pro multis). From a doctrinal view, Christ’s atonement remains sufficient for all and efficacisous for many which the doctrine has always been.

 

[Kirane]

itsjustdave1988:

You said it was an “essential part” of the Mass. I’ve showed that “pro multis” is not an essential part of the Mass, as many ancient formulas omitted it altogether. Whether you knew it or not, “essential part of the Mass” means that without this essential part, the Mass is invalid. That’s what “essential” means in Catholic theology. I recommend instead of thrusting out words you don’t completely understand in relation to the Catholic liturgy in an attempt to make accusations against Catholic teaching, you do some more reading about the religion…

I think I said that the Consecration is an essential part of the Mass. There has been a change in many (but not all) countries and in many (but not all) liturgies, in some of the words for this part of the Mass from “for many” to “for all” and that this was contrary to what was written in the Catechism of the Council of Trent. I am trying to study and make sense of the relevance of the statement of Pope Pius V as quoted as followsope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1:
“The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament.”
This would seem to emphasize what was written in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, On the Form of the Eucharist:
“The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His Blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore (our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews and Gentiles. WITH REASON, THEREFORE, WERE THE WORDS FOR ALL NOT USED, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation.” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent, TAN Books, 1982, p. 227.)
I don’t see how anyone can say that there has not been a change in teaching.
1.According to the above with reason were the words “for all” not used.
2. According to the present teaching with reason are the words “for all” used in some liturgies in some countries (but not all).