Sspx

[nbjayme]

St. Athanasius knows where the Church truly and draws strength to continue on the fight.

I am not recruiting you but telling you to stop your rash judgments on SSPX. You admitted you do not know all the answers to my queries yet you acted as though you thoroughly know the entire picture regarding SSPX.

Acting more like knowledgeable on the subject aren’t we.

The SSPX fights for Tradition and the Dogma and offer prayers to the Vicar of Christ.

You judge according to your misinformed idea.

Charity… anyone?

 

[nbjayme]

Matthew 21:28"What is your opinion? A man had two sons. He came to the first and said, ‘Son, go out and work in the vineyard today.’ 29 He said in reply, ‘I will not,’ but afterwards he changed his mind and went. 30 The man came to the other son and gave the same order. He said in reply, ‘Yes, sir,’ but did not go. 31 Which of the two did his father’s will?" They answered, “The first.” Jesus said to them, "Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you.

And… Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did took care of the vineyard of the Lord.

 

[nbjayme]

Those questions were made in order for you to reasses things and see the bigger picture.

If you can’t explain your position well regarding those simple questions how would you think you can convince a SSPX that you’re on solid ground?

Seems more of like you are a debater than a discussion-maker.

If the moderator hadn’t ban you of such attitude, it’s their own decision not mine to say. I am not here to determine who shall be banned or not.

I simply share what I know being an insider to the SSPX and of how grateful I am to have found their Tridentine mass.

You don’t want to be judged yet do the exact same thing on SSPX. And, yet those judgements were proven to be of shallow understanding of the matter.

 

[ProVobis]

Consider this: Let us for the sake of an experiment assume that everything Lefebvre said about needing to ordain four bishops to preserve the TLM is correct. Where does that leave us? Today we have the MP issued by the Holy Father to help preserve this liturgy for those that desire it.

It is true that now bishops are ordaining priests to say the Latin Mass but where was the obedience to the Holy Father’s DECREE for “wide and generous” applications of the Tridentine Mass in 1988 or even in 1991? Now this was not a plea but a DECREE, a very strong form of Papal directives. So maybe Lefebrve had a point back then? And if he were disobedient, he certainly had a lot of company.

I would agree with you that if he had pulled the same consecrations today or even if he consecrated even one, his actions could not be mitigated to the same degree that they were in 1988, if there were any mitigating circumstances at all.

Where do we go from here? Well, if things stay as they are, the four bishops will eventually die and maybe 30 years from now, most of the SSPX priests will have been released from their suspensions and the EF can move forward? What do you think?

 

[pnewton]

Where do we go from here? Well, if things stay as they are, the four bishops will eventually die and maybe 30 years from now, most of the SSPX priests will have been released from their suspensions and the EF can move forward? What do you think?

I do not know. That would depend on who succeeds them and who the next generation of leaders will be. Will they seek to maintain their own power base, or put a priority on full communion for them and their members?

The presence of the Old Catholic Church a century after Vatican I does not give me much hope. That is the pity of schism (or whatever you want to call it). Like cloth once torn it is difficult to reattach.

 

[nbjayme]

Schism?? no

“irregular canonical status.” — yes

Well, well so we now speculate the future. hmm…

Pope gathers TLM within the Church… SSPX increase in members and strength. When enough number of priests celebrates TLM + SSPX … Pope vindicates marcel lefebvre and have the strength to finally enfore the decree that should have been carried out in the motu propio / summorum pontificum.

 

[RyanML]

So St. Athanasius insist on offering mass even though he knew the declaration made against him. Violah! Action speaks louder than words.

Ryan,

So here you laudly supports the return ad orientiam. Why is it better than facing? What is the basis for Vatican II to have the priests face the people and then made a step backward?
(can we not make up our mind on this…?) Are we to go left or right? Row south or north?

Vatican II, if you have read the documents on the Liturgy, nowhere even suggests that the priest face the people during Mass. It was a practice that begun some years before the council but unfortunately became the norm after 1970 with the Mass of Paul VI. And I believe, as does the Holy Father, that the ad orientam position is better because it makes more sense. I never said everything about the New Mass was great, only that it was valid and not heretical. Archbishop Lefebvre said as much. And I would say that the New Rite would be just as awe inspiring as the TLM, if celebrated with the reverence and solemnity that the Church requires. Unfortunately too many priests today do not have that spirit.

As far as Athanasius was concerned, Pope Liberius, buy Athanasius’s own words was a holy man. He may have been weak and was pressured to excommunicate Athanasius by those who were already heretics in places of secular power, not necessarily bishops. There were of course many arian bishops. But I think to seriously compare the situation of Athanasius and that of Lefebvre is pointless because they are different. Besides the law of the Church can and does change. We didn’t have a codified law of the Church in Athanasius’s time. We did in 1988 and it clearly stated that what the Archbishop did was an excommunicable act.

 

[nbjayme]

** that the ad orientam position is better because it makes more sense**

Under what guidelines you say it make more sense? So the New Mass made less of a sense?

There were of course many arian bishops. But I think to seriously compare the situation of Athanasius and that of Lefebvre is pointless because they are different. Besides the law of the Church can and does change. We didn’t have a codified law of the Church in Athanasius’s time. We did in 1988 and it clearly stated that what the Archbishop did was an excommunicable act.

St. Athanasius was excommunicated even the fact that he fought was was right.

Was he ever outside the Church at the time he was excommunicated?

So what of his “illicit” mass ?

Were the followers of an excommunicated Athanasius wrong for attending his mass?

Moreover, the consecration of Marcel Lefebvre was never a question against the Authority of the Pope nor establishing another parallel church but to simply have priests continue on the Faith and Teachings of the Church.

 

[nbjayme]

The law of the Church can thus change but not so much for the Bull Quo Primum otherwise it would have been easy to abrogate the Missal of Pope Pius the V

 

[nbjayme]

And if the New Mass can be as awe inspiring and same as that of the TLM, then please do convince us to stop asking for the TLM and that the Pope reverts his order for TLM.

If at all its the same then drop the tlm and have priests celebrate the NO with reverence.

We have to TLM? because of what? Nostalgia? …

Because if more of the priest as you claim does not have the spirit for reverence it’s the same thing even if you TLM it.

It’s the reverence that is the root of your problem not the Mass and so stop seeking for TLM and seek for priest who can celebrate the NO with reverence.

 

[nbjayme]

The Mass is a celebration and profession of Faith and not about nostalgia.

That is why the views of those who hold the NO of equal standing to that of TLM is somewhat distorted.

Yes the NO is of equal standing but hey … let’s insist on TLM. Talking about irony of irony of who has the clear grasp of what the mass is.

These V2 supporters makes that mass like a movie that they choose which one gives them good nostalgia.



Could be Ad Orientam + Paul VI Missal as i read your logic.

 

[RyanML]

The law of the Church can thus change but not so much for the Bull Quo Primum otherwise it would have been easy to abrogate the Missal of Pope Pius the V

If the only thing holding the TLM together was Quo Primum then of course another pope could easily abrogate the Missal of Pope Pius V. Just as Pope Benedict could easily abrogate the Missal of Paul VI tomorrow if he found it in the Church’s best interest. But the TLM goes back much further than Pius V and as you and I both know, a pope can not just abrogate a liturgical tradition without serious just cause. It becomes the law of the Church by long standing custom. And it was before the 16th century, Pius V just codified it and made it more universal becuase there were so many different liturgical traditions being introduced within the Mass. And maybe if the New Rite had been celebrated from the beginning the way the Church intends for the Mass to be celebrated we wouldn’t have the mess we have today. Of course that’s just one issue. Bad catechesis is another problem. So many people today just don’t know the faith. Then there were all the cultural issues that were going on in the world during the council and the more open attitude of John XXIII, while benificial in many ways, may have done as much harm as it did good. Paul VI himself feared that the smoke of Satan had entered the Church.

 

[nbjayme]

Smoke of satan entered from where?

But the TLM goes back much further than Pius V and as you and I both know, a pope can not just abrogate a liturgical tradition without serious just cause.

Probably you can since the NO and TLM has no difference anyway. Both are fulfilling our obligation to God. And, what is the Pope giving more preference history? or God?

What value is there for TLM of enforcing the Faith that the NO can be easily scrapped by the Holy Father?

Was the Bull Quo Primum then a defective document for prescribing the words “forever” or “perpetuity”?

Your own reasoning seems to be your own enemy. :-/

 

[RyanML]

The Mass is a celebration and profession of Faith and not about nostalgia.

That is why the views of those who hold the NO of equal standing to that of TLM is somewhat distorted.

Yes the NO is of equal standing but hey … let’s insist on TLM. Talking about irony of irony of who has the clear grasp of what the mass is.

These V2 supporters makes that mass like a movie that they choose which one gives them good nostalgia.



Could be Ad Orientam + Paul VI Missal as i read your logic.

Do you assume that all Catholics who attend the Mass of Paul VI don’t know the faith? The Mass is the re-presentation of Calvary, and as you say, a celebration and profession of our Catholic faith. Vatican II taught this, so i don’t know why traditionalists are so up in arms. And why couldn’t there be the Mass of Paul VI and the TLM? There are several different rites of Mass in the west, not just one. That’s another issue. Why do some folks call the TLM the “true mass”? There are dozens of rites within the Church and many different ancient liturgical traditions. Are they not just as “true”?

 

[RyanML]

Smoke of satan entered from where?

Probably you can since the NO and TLM has no difference anyway. Both are fulfilling our obligation to God. And, what is the Pope giving more preference history? or God?

What value is there for TLM of enforcing the Faith that the NO can be easily scrapped by the Holy Father?

Was the Bull Quo Primum then a defective document for prescribing the words “forever” or “perpetuity”?

Your own reasoning seems to be your own enemy. :-/

I’m sure i don’t know all the answers, at least not to your satisfaction. But no pope can bind forever other popes in matters of liturgy. If they can, please show me where the Church teaches that. Pope Pius V may simply have made a mistake using the terms “forever” and “perpetuity” since he did not have the authority to do that in the first place. He was after all, a man, who can make mistakes just like any other pope, i’m sure you can agree to that

 

[nbjayme]

Do you assume that all Catholics who attend the Mass of Paul VI don’t know the faith?

What i do know from you is that when they attend a TLM, it’s mostly nostalgia.

There are several different rites of Mass in the west, not just one. That’s another issue. Why do some folks call the TLM the “true mass”? There are dozens of rites within the Church and many different ancient liturgical traditions. Are they not just as “true”?

Was the Bull Quo Primum then a defective document for prescribing the words “forever” or “perpetuity”?



Which of those dozen rites departed from Tradition?

Those ancient rites were already codified and standardized and special indult were granted by St. Pope Pius the V on those that have been celebrated more than 200 years since the declaration of BQP.

 

[RyanML]

And by the way, we know that Quo Primum is not dogmatic because it does not aply to every priest. If you read it you will see that Pius V declared that priests and bishops who were using a missal that was more than 200 years old were not bound to use the codified missal. If it was an infallible, dogmatic document it, by definition, must bind universally.

 

[nbjayme]

PPV used the binding power of the Church. I think you treat him to be a so clumsy fellow.

“Pope Pius V may simply have made a mistake using the terms “forever” and “perpetuity” since he did not have the authority to do that in the first place.”

Yep you ain’t sure on your ground there.

He did not have the Authority? My my my…

 

[nbjayme]

And by the way, we know that Quo Primum is not dogmatic because it does not aply to every priest. If you read it you will see that Pius V declared that priests and bishops who were using a missal that was more than 200 years old were not bound to use the codified missal. If it was an infallible, dogmatic document it, by definition, must bind universally.

Ehem, post #76

You seem to be so preoccupied of having the Bull Quo Primum as Dogmatic.

The Mass is a profession of Faith in thoughts words and actions.

Bull Quo Primum was made to enforce on what precise manner we as Catholics are ought to observe to remedy the numerous errors and even future errors. Lex Orandi … Lex Credendi.

 

[RyanML]

And another thing, if Quo Primum did infact mean that the TLM was to be celebrated in perpetuity, that didn’t give Lefebvre the free for all to consecrate bishops without the Pope’s authority. There’s nothing in Quo Primum that would give a bishop that authority. So the only thing the Archbishop could use for his authority, besides his own, which would be very protestant, would be the possible exceptions in the 1983 code of canon law, which the SSPX likes to use when it suites them but discard when it does not.