Stuff the SSPX are wrong about

[USMC]

DavidJoseph:

Regarding religious liberty, USMC, you don’t seem to realize that the type of religious liberty that Vatican II talked about… is totally different from the kind of religious liberty that the Church has in the past condemned (and still does, btw)…. the latter has to do with MORAL religious freedom, while the former was against POLITICAL oppression.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church illustrates this difference:
2108 The right to religious liberty is… a natural right of the human person to civil liberty. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right (Pius XII, 6 December 1953).

OK, so you are saying that no one has the moral right to religious liberty, but only a civil right? You are acknowledging that the Church has always taught (and still does) that no one has the moral right to religious liberty, but they do have the “civil right” to religious liberty.

Since we agree that no one has a moral right to religious liberty, the question arises: Has the Church ever specifically address a “civil right” to religious liberty? And if so, what has it said?

Pope Pius IX: “They do not hesitate to put forward the view which is not only opposed to the Catholic Church, but very pernicious for the salvation of souls — an opinion which Gregory XVI, Our Predecessor, called an insanity; namely, that liberty of conscience and worship is the strict right of every man, a right which should be proclaimed and affirmed by law in every properly constituted state… When they rashly make these statements, they do not realize or recall to mind that they are advocating what St. Augustine calls a liberty of perdition” (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura).

This is dealing with State law: the “constituted state”. Pope Gregory XVI said that it was an insanity to believe that religious liberty should be a civil right.

The following are two condemnations from the Syllabus of errors. Keep in mind that the proposition presented is condemned as an error:

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, # 78: “Hence in certain regions of Catholic name, it has been laudably sanctioned by law that men immigrating there be allowed to have public exercises of any form of worship of their own.” – Condemned.

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864, # 77: “In this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever.” – Condemned.

Now, there is a kind of “civil religious liberty” that the Church DOES allow. The Church allows for heretics and those of other false religions to practice their religion in private. Public worship is forbidden, as proposition # 78 quoted above says, but private worship is allowed. That is the kind of civil liberty that the Church grants.

If that is what you are referring to - private “civil religious liberty” -then we are in agreement.

 

[DavidJoseph]

USMC, you must not have read my post carefully. Let me quote a sentence I used in my previous post that you didn’t quote:

The latter [they type the Church condemned] was against the Freemasonic liberal statements; the former [the type the Church accepts] was against Communist dictatorships that ruled half of the world and many Catholic countries (Poland, Lithuania, Slovenia, etc), forcing their people to be godless by imposing atheism.

So what Vatican II’s teaching promoting religious freedom did, in a nutshell, was forbid imposing atheism on people. As I said earlier, many Catholic countries such as Poland, Lithuania, and Slovenia were stuck with Communism at the time. And let’s not forget Russia (although not a Catholic country).

 

[DavidJoseph]

We have absolutely no obligation to obey if that obedience will endanger our faith, or the faith of our children.

The greatest saints of the Church all agree that while we aren’t to obey an order to commit sin, anyone who claims that a command is sinful has the heavy weight of the burden of proof on their shoulders --and ANY benefit of the doubt goes to the superior.

As for reasons that would justify attendance at SSPX Masses, the Church alone has the authority to determine what those would be, not you.

 

[USMC]

DavidJoseph:

So what Vatican II’s teaching promoting religious freedom did, in a nutshell, was forbid imposing atheism on people. As I said earlier, many Catholic countries such as Poland, Lithuania, and Slovenia were stuck with Communism at the time. And let’s not forget Russia (although not a Catholic country).

I like that interpretation of Vatican II. What you described is TRUE religious liberty and TRUE liberty of conscience.

Catholics - who belong to the true faith - have a right to religious liberty and to liberty of conscience. In other words, no government has the right to forbid a Catholic from practicing their faith; or from following their properly formed conscience. However, a government does have the right to keep a Muslem, for example, from practicing their faith publically since it is a false religion.

 

[USMC]

DavidJoseph:

As for reasons that would justify attendance at SSPX Masses, the Church alone has the authority to determine what those would be, not you.

So, what does the Church say? In these extraordinary times that we live in, does the Church allow people to attend Mass at a chapel that they (Rome) say is in schism?

A few years ago this question was posed to the Church authorities. A letter was written to the then Cardinal Ratzinger asking if attendance at an SSPX Mass was allowed; and if it fullfilled the Sunday obligation. Msgr. Camille Perl answered on behalf of Cardinal Ratzinger. The following is what he said:

*Question: “Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass”:

Answer: In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X."

Question: “Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass”:

Answer: "If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin."*

In you above statement, you said that the Church is the one who has the authority to determine what would justify attendance at the SSPX Mass, and not me.

Well, we just saw what the Church has said: Do you accept that judgment of the Church? Yes or no?

If you do accept the judgment of the Church, then you can no longer criticize a person for attending Mass at an SSPX Church, unless you know that the motive for their attendance is to separate themselves from the Pope.

 

[RobNY]

USMC–

My point was more that it is a mistake to attend an SSPX liturgy when a licit one is still available. If the Mass you regularly attend is invalidated, and there are no other non-schismatic churches to attend, then surely I agree with you, the SSPX is a valid alternative for someone who wishes to fulfill their Sunday obligation (and that’s a big IF).

Now, you are saying that the Mass you regularly attend is an indult. Now, these, from my knowledge, are few and far between. Are there any non-indult Masses available nearby for you to attend? In my estimation, if you find the indult Mass to be unacceptable, you would first be required to fulfill your Sunday obligation at a licit Mass in communion with Rome, even if that Mass is a Pauline Mass.

I understand that many do not like the Pauline Mass, the Novus Ordo. It is still, however, completely valid. It may not be of the highest quality as it is practiced near where you are, but I’m sure you could find at least one parish which avoids heresy (even if it only blandly holds a Mass).

You also have to think of the scandal your actions could possibly cause to other Catholics who know of your actions, to either your fellow parishoners or to your kids. It isn’t ok to be in schism from Peter, and attending a SSPX can give the false impression that you support that. Yes, you may not be in sin for attending the SSPX Mass, but you may be in sin for leading Christians to scandal.

I know you are concerned for your children, but attending both the schismatic SSPX Masses or the occassional indult Mass with heretical outbursts (that don’t invalidate the Mass) can bring two different conclusions. For the former, you can accidently or implicitly be teaching your children that separation of union from the See of Rome is OK. For the latter, you can implictly be teaching your children that separation of communion with Rome is not ok, even if sinners abuse parts of the Church. There are many lessons that can be drawn from experiences like this. I think doing the latter while strongly explaining Church doctrine to your child may be the best.

From what I see, going to the SSPX Mass is only running away from the problem. I say that you do your best on a valiant effort to make things right. You can organize the people in your parish to oppose this. As long as the priest stops preaching heresy, we’ve got the outcome we’d like, right? And appealing to the bishop is one thing, you can always appeal higher (good luck on that, I suppose). What other solutions can you think of? The most orthodox in the faith are typically the biggest contributors. Imagine if you organized with a bunch of orthodox Catholics and told the priest that you felt it was morally wrong to tithe to a Church that supports heresy (and if you do that, send the money to a good parish, after all, we can’t be sinning in opposing heresy). I realize I’m still young (17) and naive, but, perhaps some of my ideas could work?

 

[USMC]

RobNY:

USMC–

My point was more that it is a mistake to attend an SSPX liturgy when a licit one is still available. If the Mass you regularly attend is invalidated, and there are no other non-schismatic churches to attend, then surely I agree with you, the SSPX is a valid alternative for someone who wishes to fulfill their Sunday obligation (and that’s a big IF).

Now, you are saying that the Mass you regularly attend is an indult. Now, these, from my knowledge, are few and far between. Are there any non-indult Masses available nearby for you to attend? In my estimation, if you find the indult Mass to be unacceptable, you would first be required to fulfill your Sunday obligation at a licit Mass in communion with Rome, even if that Mass is a Pauline Mass.

I understand that many do not like the Pauline Mass, the Novus Ordo. It is still, however, completely valid. It may not be of the highest quality as it is practiced near where you are, but I’m sure you could find at least one parish which avoids heresy (even if it only blandly holds a Mass).

You also have to think of the scandal your actions could possibly cause to other Catholics who know of your actions, to either your fellow parishoners or to your kids. It isn’t ok to be in schism from Peter, and attending a SSPX can give the false impression that you support that. Yes, you may not be in sin for attending the SSPX Mass, but you may be in sin for leading Christians to scandal.

I know you are concerned for your children, but attending both the schismatic SSPX Masses or the occassional indult Mass with heretical outbursts (that don’t invalidate the Mass) can bring two different conclusions. For the former, you can accidently or implicitly be teaching your children that separation of union from the See of Rome is OK. For the latter, you can implictly be teaching your children that separation of communion with Rome is not ok, even if sinners abuse parts of the Church. There are many lessons that can be drawn from experiences like this. I think doing the latter while strongly explaining Church doctrine to your child may be the best.

From what I see, going to the SSPX Mass is only running away from the problem. I say that you do your best on a valiant effort to make things right. You can organize the people in your parish to oppose this. As long as the priest stops preaching heresy, we’ve got the outcome we’d like, right? And appealing to the bishop is one thing, you can always appeal higher (good luck on that, I suppose). What other solutions can you think of? The most orthodox in the faith are typically the biggest contributors. Imagine if you organized with a bunch of orthodox Catholics and told the priest that you felt it was morally wrong to tithe to a Church that supports heresy (and if you do that, send the money to a good parish, after all, we can’t be sinning in opposing heresy). I realize I’m still young (17) and naive, but, perhaps some of my ideas could work?

You raised a lot of points in that post. Knowing how long winded I can be, even responding to short posts, I will pass on responding to each point.

I will just say this: The Church is in a complete crisis today. The faith is being subtly attack, even from within. Knowing how best to deal with this situation is not easy. We each have to use our best judgment in how we respond.

In the end we will all be judged by God on what we did or failed to do during this crisis. Personally, my consciene is very clear, and I have a pretty delicate conscience. I have comments on a some of the points you made - especially about attending a Novus Ordo mass - but I will pass on that for now.

If you have one specific point that you would really like me to respond to just let me know and I will be more than happy to.

PS. Glad to hear you are 17 years old: that gives me hope for the future.

 

[malibu364]

USMC:

If you do accept the judgment of the Church, then you can no longer criticize a person for attending Mass at an SSPX Church, unless you know that the motive for their attendance is to separate themselves from the Pope.

Not precisely…

You can no longer criticize a person for attending Mass at an SSPX Church, “If [his/her] intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal *for the sake of devotion…” * [emphasis added]

 

[Catholic_Dude]

USMC:

So, what does the Church say? In these extraordinary times that we live in, does the Church allow people to attend Mass at a chapel that they (Rome) say is in schism?

A few years ago this question was posed to the Church authorities. A letter was written to the then Cardinal Ratzinger asking if attendance at an SSPX Mass was allowed; and if it fullfilled the Sunday obligation. Msgr. Camille Perl answered on behalf of Cardinal Ratzinger. The following is what he said:

Question: “Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass”:

*Answer: In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X." *

Question: "Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass":

Answer: "If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin."

In you above statement, you said that the Church is the one who has the authority to determine what would justify attendance at the SSPX Mass, and not me.

Well, we just saw what the Church has said: Do you accept that judgment of the Church? Yes or no?

If you do accept the judgment of the Church, then you can no longer criticize a person for attending Mass at an SSPX Church, unless you know that the motive for their attendance is to separate themselves from the Pope.

I would like to see a source and date for this Q&A.

Part of JP2 Letter:
5c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.
You need to separate your legalism and loop hole theology with the plain decree of the Pope. Failing to do so while claiming to be in union with the pope is doing nothing more than giving the pope the finger. There is no justification for ordaining people unlawfully.
The Pope is your spiritual father and defying him is not Catholic one bit. Its amazing that the same people who quote that line about everyone should submit to the Roman Pontiff somehow feel that doesnt apply to them.

There is only one liberty of conscience going on here and that is willful refusal to obey the Pope while at the same time believing you are doing what you feel in your heart is the way to go.

The Lefebvrists are in schism and therefore grave sin.

 

[USMC]

Catholic Dude:

I would like to see a source and date for this Q&A.

Look it up. It is all over the internet.

You need to separate your legalism and loop hole theology with the plain decree of the Pope.

Don’t like that statement from the Church authorities I see. Too bad. That is the judgment of the Church on the matter: and it happens to agree with canon law.

 

[RobNY]

I will just say this: The Church is in a complete crisis today. The faith is being subtly attack, even from within. Knowing how best to deal with this situation is not easy. We each have to use our best judgment in how we respond.

I agree that we each have to use our judgment, but this debate has to do with the questions of “within what guidelines.” Also, we have to be careful to not use the crisis in the Church to justify disobeying the Church.

In the end we will all be judged by God on what we did or failed to do during this crisis. Personally, my consciene is very clear, and I have a pretty delicate conscience. I have comments on a some of the points you made - especially about attending a Novus Ordo mass - but I will pass on that for now.

I have no doubt you are following your conscience, I’m sure you are sincere. However, I would like to know what exactly is the problem with the Novus Ordo. Cut out the mountains of quotes and simply state what it is that is wrong, if need be. You don’t need to prove your case to me. I just want to know the problem(s) you have.

If you have one specific point that you would really like me to respond to just let me know and I will be more than happy to.

Does attending a SSPX Mass give the implicit example to your children that schism is OK or not?

For all the cliche value of this statement, I must say it: actions speak louder than words. You can tell your kids from sun rise to sun set that schism is wrong, but if you attend a schismatic Mass, what are they going to learn?

-Rob

 

[Consecrated]

Maybe we should make it clear whether or not there is a defined doctrine of the church on “Religious Liberty.” I know that many popes have taught on it, (some quoted by USMC) making it a tradition-with-a-little-t teaching and worthy of our assent, but I don’t think it’s been formally defined and declared (yet!).

DavidJoseph:

Regarding religious liberty, USMC, you don’t seem to realize that the type of religious liberty that Vatican II talked about (which, btw, you ARE required to assent to under pain of mortal sin)

(my emphasis)
I believe VII was a pastoral council, not a dogmatic one. Only the teachings contained in it that had already been formally defined are requiring of our assent under pain of mortal sin. Please correct me with the proper documentation if I am wrong.

 

[USMC]

RobNY:

Does attending a SSPX Mass give the implicit example to your children that schism is OK or not?

For all the cliche value of this statement, I must say it: actions speak louder than words. You can tell your kids from sun rise to sun set that schism is wrong, but if you attend a schismatic Mass, what are they going to learn? -Rob

I’ll respond to your question about the Mass in another post, because it will probably be long. Also, I will have to use quotes when I discuss the new Mass. The reason is to show that what I am saying is not merely my opinion, but is based on facts.

Regarding scandal: No, I am not at all worried about “scandalizing” my children by attending an SSPX Mass. But I would be concerned about scandal if I went to a modern mass that had communion in the hand, altar girls, rock music, etc. Have you ever asked a Catholic who attends one of these Churches if they are concerned about the scandal that it causes their children? That’s who should be concerned about scandal.

In a time of crisis such as this, it is justifiable to take actions that normally would not be allowed. Not everything is justified, obviously, but some things are. Attending an SSPX Mass is certainly one of them.

Now, I want you to think about this. If you had lived during the days of St. Athanasius - who had been excommunicated, banned from his diocese 5 time, and spent 17 years in exile - and you met a person who attending his Mass, what would you have thought about that person? I will tell you what you would have thought.

You would have thought that the person was attending a schismatic Church. You would have told them that they should find another Church in the diocese that is not quite as Arian as the others, and attend that Mass. You would have said that their attending St. Athanasius’ Mass was scandelous to thier children and anyone else who knew. If you lived then and thought as you do now, that is exactly what you would have said.

But when all was said and done, those who attended St. Athanasius’ Mass were actually praised for it, and St. Athanasius, who stood virtually alone, was canonized. And the Pope at the time (Liberius) was the very first Pope to not be canonized. Those who followed St. Athanasius, and the others like them, were praised for refusing to have anything to do with “the wicked Arain leaven” (St. Basil).

Our days of liberalism are far worse, and many people today, such as myself, refuse to have anything to do with “the wicked liberal leaven”.

St. Basil: "Matters have come to this pass: the people have left their houses of prayer, and assembled in the deserts, – a pitiable sight; women and children, old men, and men otherwise infirm, wretchedly faring in the open air, amid most profuse rains and snowstorms and winds and frosts of winter; and again in summer under a scorching sun. To this they submit, because they will have no part of the wicked Arian leaven… “Only one offense is now vigorously punished an accurate observance of our fathers’ traditions.”

 

[RobNY]

USMC:

Regarding scandal: No, I am not at all worried about “scandalizing” my children by attending an SSPX Mass. But I would be concerned about scandal if I went to a modern mass that had communion in the hand, altar girls, rock music, etc. Have you ever asked a Catholic who attends one of these Churches if they are concerned about the scandal that it causes their children? That’s who who should be concerned about scandal.

Nonsense, stop making a caricature of the Novus Ordo. Does the “rock music,” etc… happen at some of these Masses? Yes. Does it happen always and everywhere? No. I know my parish doesn’t indulge in “rock music.” Have you checked the parishes near you? Have you ascertained that they all use “rock music?” In any case the “rock music” is not required to be in the Mass.

As to altar girls: there is nothing wrong with this. Yes, it is preferable to have altar boys, but it is permitted to have altar girls. This is just a silly objection to justify attending a schismatic Mass.

As for communion in the hand

1. You are not required to receive in the hand, you and your family can continue to receive via tongue.
2. It is a permitted practice, perhaps one that you don’t like, but permitted nonetheless.

Have I ever asked “one of these Catholics.” No, for any number of reasons. First because I’ve never met “one of these Catholics,” second because what one perceives as irreverant music is not a cause of scandal, but schism which is a grave sin can be. Furthermore, even were that a cause of scandal, it no more keeps your actions from being scandalous. “He’s just as bad as me,” ain’t gonna fly before the judgment seat, do you think?

With all due respect, I can’t see your usual fine-tuned argumentation in this paragraph.

In a time of crisis such as this, it is justifiable to take actions that normally would not be allowed. Not everything is justified, obviously, but some things are. Attending an SSPX Mass is certainly one of them.

Certainly? I wouldn’t go that far. Probably, if we want to be charitable about it.

Now, I want you to think about this. If you had lived during the days of St. Athanasius - who had been excommunicated, banned from his diocese 5 time, and spent 17 years in exile - and you met a person who attending his Mass, what would you have thought that person?

What exactly is it that corresponds to Arianism in this case? Do you seriously compare a heresy that denies the divinity of Christ with the intermittent occasion of a priest preaching a heresy from the pulpit to be the same?

I will tell you what you would have thought. You would have thought that the person was attending a schismatic Church. You would have told them that they should find another Church in the diocese that is not quite as Arian as the others, and attend that Mass. You would have said that their attending St. Athanasius’ Mass was scandelous to thier children and anyone else who knew. If you lived then and thought as you do now, that is exactly what you would have said.

With all due respect, no you won’t tell me what I would have thought. I would have supported the truth, and the truth in this case was to side with St. Athanasius.

Our days of liberalism are far worse, and I refuse to have anything to do with “the wicked liberal leaven”.

From what you’ve presented with us, the occassional entry of a priest who sometimes preaches heresy from the pulpit, I am not inclined to view you as a persecuted believer on par with St. Athanasius.

 

[bear06]

But I would be concerned about scandal if I went to a modern mass that had communion in the hand, altar girls,

I’d suggest you read up on what scanal acutally is:
newadvent.org/cathen/13506d.htm

In a time of crisis such as this, it is justifiable to take actions that normally would not be allowed… Attending an SSPX Mass is certainly one of them.

Here’s the thing. The Magisterium is the arbiter of necessity in this matter, not the SSPX. The Church has said that you may attend an SSPX Mass if you are their simply because you appreciate the TLM. It did not say that you may attend because the sky is falling.

Now, I want you to think about this. If you had lived during the days of St. Athanasius - who had been excommunicated, banned from his diocese 5 time, and spent 17 years in exile - and you met a person who attending his Mass, what would you have thought about that person? I will tell you what you would have thought.

Is the Church somewhere denying the divinity of Christ? Is the Church teaching heresy at all?

You would have told them that they should find another Church in the diocese that is not quite as Arian as the others, and attend that Mass. You would have said that their attending St. Athanasius’ Mass was scandelous to thier children and anyone else who knew. If you lived then and thought as you do now, that is exactly what you would have said.

I think that you might want to read a little more into the Arian heresy, Pope Liberius and St. Athanasius.

But when all was said and done, those who attended St. Athanasius’ Mass were actually praised for it, and St. Athanasius, who stood virtually alone, was canonized. And the Pope at the time (Liberius) was the very first Pope to not be canonized

Are you aware that Denzinger’s lists him as St. Liberius and that Pope St. Anastasius spoke of the “Orthodoxy of Pope Liberius”?
envoymagazine.com/backissues/4.6/lefebvre.htm

Our Pope is not in exile. He is clearly at the helm.

Those who followed St. Athanasius, and the others like them, were praised for refusing to have anything to do with “the wicked Arain leaven” (St. Basil).

Like I said, Pope Liberius was also praised:

Positive evidence in favour of Liberius is not wanting. About 432 St. Prosper re-edited and continued St. Jerome’s “Chronicle”, but he was careful to omit the words tædio victus exilii in relating the return of Liberius. St. Sulpicius Severus (403) says Liberius was restored ob seditiones Romanas. A letter of Pope St. Anastasius I (401) mentions him with Dionysius, Hilary, and Eusebius as one of those who would have died rather than blaspheme Christ with the Arians. St. Ambrose remembered him as an exceedingly holy man. Socrates has placed the exile of Liberius after the Council of Milan, through too carelessly following the order of Rufinus; unlike Rufinus, however, he is not doubtful about the fall of Liberius, but gives as sufficient reason for his return the revolt of the Romans against Felix, and he has expressly omitted the story which Sozomen took from Sabinus, a writer of whose good faith Socrates had a low opinion. To Theodoret Liberius is a glorious athlete of the faith; he tells us more of him than any other writer has done, and he tells it with enthusiasm.

But the strongest arguments for the innocence of Liberius are a priori. Had he really given in to the emperor during his exile, the emperor would have published his victory far and wide; there would have been no possible doubt about it; it would have been more notorious than even that gained over Hosius. But if he was released because the Romans demanded him back, because his deposition had been too uncanonical, because his resistance was too heroic, and because Felix was not generally recognized as pope, then we might be sure he would be suspected of having given some pledge to the emperor; the Arians and the Felicians alike, and soon the Luciferians, would have no difficulty in spreading a report of his fall and in winning credence for it. It is hard to see how Hilary in banishment and Athanasius in hiding could disbelieve such a story, when they heard that Liberius had returned, though the other exiled bishops were still unrelieved.

Further, the pope’s decree after Rimini, that the fallen bishops could not be restored unless they showed their sincerity by vigour against the Arians, would have been laughable, if he himself had fallen yet earlier, and had not publicly atoned for his sin. Yet, we can be quite certain that he made no public confession of having fallen, no recantation, no atonement

newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm

 

[USMC]

USMC:

Regarding scandal: No, I am not at all worried about “scandalizing” my children by attending an SSPX Mass. But I would be concerned about scandal if I went to a modern mass that had communion in the hand, altar girls, rock music, etc.

RobNY:

Nonsense, stop making a caricature of the Novus Ordo. Does the “rock music,” etc… happen at some of these Masses? Yes. Does it happen always and everywhere? No.

So, are those things merely abuses? I am going to get a little off topic here, but I think it will help to show how bad the days we are living in really are. Are the following also abuses:

1. Hells Angels receiving communion and chasing it with beer.
2. Placing the left over hosts in burlap bags and throwing them into a river.
3. Hosts being dropped all over the ground and stepped on (hundreds of them).
4. Native American Indians in full garb dancing and wailing around the altar, beating on drums and screaming.
5. Pagan rituals taking place at mass as part of the Mass.

Everyone of those “abuses” took place at a Papal Mass of John Paul II. I point to these things, not to indicate that they are part of every Novus Ordo mass, but merely to show how bad things have become in the Church: when even Papal Masses include such horrors.

As to altar girls: there is nothing wrong with this. Yes, it is preferable to have altar boys, but it is permitted to have altar girls. This is just a silly objection to justify attending a schismatic Mass.

Is it really just a silly objection? Or is it “an evil practice”?

Pope Benedict XIV, Allatae Sunt: (29) “Pope Gelasius in his ninth letter (chap. 26) to the bishops of Lucania condemned the evil practice which had been introduced of women serving the priest at the celebration of Mass… Innocent IV strictly forbade it in his letter to the bishop of Tusculum: ‘Women should not dare to serve at the altar’… We too have forbidden this practice in the same words in Our oft-repeated constitution Etsi Pastoralis, sect. 6, no. 21.”

The Pope called this an “evil practice". Has evil now become alright?

USMC:

In a time of crisis such as this, it is justifiable to take actions that normally would not be allowed. Not everything is justified, obviously, but some things are. Attending an SSPX Mass is certainly one of them.

RobNY:

Certainly? I wouldn’t go that far. Probably, if we want to be charitable about it.

I will accept “probably”. Especially given what the Church authorities have said (see the above quote from Msgr Perl.)

USMC:

Now, I want you to think about this. If you had lived during the days of St. Athanasius - who had been excommunicated, banned from his diocese 5 time, and spent 17 years in exile - and you met a person who attending his Mass, what would you have thought that person?

RobNY:

What exactly is it that corresponds to Arianism in this case? Do you seriously compare a heresy that denies the divinity of Christ with the intermittent occasion of a priest preaching a heresy from the pulpit to be the same?

Well, when I first read this I thought to myself “maybe he isn’t aware of the absolute chaos that is taking place in the Church today”. But on further consideration I don’t think that is possible. Enough of the abuses are continually posted on this message board that you are certainly aware of them.

And heresy is heresy. It is true that the heresy of denying the Divinity of Jesus is greater than other heresies; but if a Catholic adheres to even one heresy (regardless of which) he has lost the faith completely. Just as it only takes one mortal sin to remove all sanctifying grace from the soul, so too it takes only one heresy to destroy all supernatural faith.

continue

 

[USMC]

continuation

So whether a priest preaches the Arian heresy, or any heresy from the pulpit, it is equally as dangerous, since any heresy causes a person to lose all faith.

Maybe the reason you don’t think things are so bad is because you have become used to them. The irreverence, for example, is just taken as a given. The profane music that is sung in Church is considered normal. These things may sound minor, but they are not. Little by little these things begin to have an affect on us, even if we are not aware of it. It is like the story of the frog in the boiling water. They say that if you put a frog in boiling water he will jump out; but if you put him in warm water and gradually raise the temperature he will remain in the water until he is cooked. The gradual changes and irreverence that have takes place in the Mass is literally “cooking” many Catholics today. Are you one of them? Is that why consider the chaos today to be relatively minor?

During the Arian crisis, there was really just one main problem that I am aware of. I don’t know of any liturgical scandals, or any tampering with the sacraments, or pagan rituals being mingled with the Mass, etc. The only problem I am aware of is that most Priests denied the Divinity of Jesus. Now, there is no question that this is very bad, but I seriously doubt that at every Mass the denial of Our Lord’s Divinity came up. I would presume that most of the time the sermon was based on the Gospel reading of the day, with the Divinity of Jesus (or lack thereof) not even mentioned. Yet, nevertheless, the faithful Catholics fled from these Churches as “houses of impiety” (St. Basil).

Today is much worse. In addition to heresy being everywhere, and almost every doctrine being denied or questions (including the Divinity of Jesus), the masses themselves have become irreverent and corrupt. (I will deal with this more in my post on the Mass).

USMC:

I will tell you what you would have thought [if you lived in Athanasius’ day]. You would have thought that the person [who went to St. Athanasius’ Mass] was attending a schismatic Church. You would have told them that they should find another Church in the diocese that is not quite as Arian as the others, and attend that Mass. You would have said that their attending St. Athanasius’ Mass was scandelous to thier children and anyone else who knew. If you lived then and thought as you do now, that is exactly what you would have said.

RobNY:

With all due respect, no you won’t tell me what I would have thought. I would have supported the truth, and the truth in this case was to side with St. Athanasius.

Oh really? So, you would have stood with St. Athanasius – who had been excommunicated and banned from his diocese - and against viturally all the hierarchy. You would have stood with a person who gave absolutely every indication of being a schismatic? Do you really believe that?

You really think you would have sided with Athanasius and against the Pope? Now, it later became known (or was said) that the Pope was “forced” to sign the semi-Arian statement, but who knew that at the time? What was believed was that even the Pope approved of Arianism. And you really think you would have stood with St. Athanasius? Now let’s be honest. There was every reason to believe that Athanasius was a schismatic, and no reason to think he was not.

Everything about St. Athanasius’ situation appeared to be schismatic. He had been excommunicated; he was banned from his diocese; he spent 17 years in exile, and he went around ordaining priests!

I’m sure you really think that you would have stood with St. Athanasius during the Arian crisis, but given your thoughts on today’s crisis, I would seriously question that.

 

[RobNY]

USMC:

I’m sure you really think that you would have stood with St. Athanasius during the Arian crisis, but given your thoughts on today’s crisis, I would seriously question that.

I would have stood with him or ceased to be Christian… the Divinity of Christ is what makes us Christians, no?

To be totally honest, I can’t say what I would have done any more than you can say what I would have done. I didn’t mean my statement to say that I’d actually be strong enough to carry out the faith, more to differentiate between what you were saying I’d do. I believe I’d try to follow the truth in both examples, and I don’t think I’m doing anything wrong in this case.

but given your thoughts on today’s crisis, I would seriously question that.

You say that as if there is something wrong with what I believe about today’s crisis. Where is the Pope teaching error? Where is abuse codified into official documents? I want things as they should be, but recognize they aren’t there. My solution is to change from the inside. Yours, to be blunt, is to run away. Your solution, no matter what you do, can make no difference. What if everytime there was an abuse, i.e., of indulgences, people could justify their schism? Abuses of indulgences, and irreverance in Mass, etc… while certainly needing to be corrected don’t in the least justify schism.

Are the following also abuses:

Yes.

Please don’t take the exception as the rule, though. It reminds me of the people who argue for abortion because WHAT ABOUT THE HEALTH OF THE MOTHER?!?!?

The Pope called this an “evil practice". Has evil now become alright?

The Church seems to view this more as a discipline. What are the impediments to keep women from serving, except canonical law, which has been lifted/altered?

As to whether or not it is an “evil practice,” I say, not intrinsically, at least unless you give me a reason to the contrary.

I realize the Church is in “crisis,” but to me it seems as if the Church is simply in perpetual crisis, just the question is to what degree. If we’re always in crisis, we can always justify extraordinary measures, and we can always be loosening our bonds to the Church.

 

[USMC]

RobNY:

I would have stood with him or ceased to be Christian… the Divinity of Christ is what makes us Christians, no?

To be totally honest, I can’t say what I would have done any more than you can say what I would have done. I didn’t mean my statement to say that I’d actually be strong enough to carry out the faith, more to differentiate between what you were saying I’d do. I believe I’d try to follow the truth in both examples, and I don’t think I’m doing anything wrong in this case.

The situation in the Church today is dire, and the faith is under attack. I bet even you have been affected by this crisis more than you realize. We cannot swim in a sea of liberalism without getting at least a little wet. Therefore, as I have said, things that normally would not be allowed are justified.

RobNY:

You say that as if there is something wrong with what I believe about today’s crisis. Where is the Pope teaching error?

(Thinking to myself: should I respond to this?)

RobNY:

Where is abuse codified into official documents?

It doesn’t matter if it is codified into official documents, it is occurring! If all Churches were following the official documents we would have far fewer abuses.

RobNY:

I want things as they should be, but recognize they aren’t there.

But they are exactly as they should be. There are no abuses at all. Everything is done extremely reverently. No heresy is ever spoken from the pulpit. No profane music. No abuses at all. But, of course, this is at an SSPX Mass.

RobNY:

My solution is to change from the inside. Yours, to be blunt, is to run away. Your solution, no matter what you do, can make no difference.

Now, I have been meaning to reiterate this: I am not a member of the SSPX. I attend an Indult Mass, and only sometimes an SSPX Mass. I go to confession at a Novus Ordo Church (I went today as a matter of fact). I am not an SSPX member and do not even completely agree with them.

I have had many discussions with SSPX priests about one thing in particular that I disagree with them about, and do you know what? Every single SSPX priest I have spoken to about this issue, has agreed with me! Every single one of them, without exception, has agreed with me and thought that the partcular thing that takes place within the SSPX is wrong.

RobNY:

What if everytime there was an abuse, i.e., of indulgences, people could justify their schism? Abuses of indulgences, and irreverance in Mass, etc… while certainly needing to be corrected don’t in the least justify schism.

True, no abuse justifies schism, and I am not justifying schism. I am justifying why a person can attend Mass at an SSPX Church.

But, if I am visiting another city (and that happens quite often), I do not just look for an SSPX Church. I will usually look for a FSSP Church first. I have always found their masses very reverent and holy as well.

RobNY:

I realize the Church is in “crisis,” but to me it seems as if the Church is simply in perpetual crisis, just the question is to what degree. If we’re always in crisis, we can always justify extraordinary measures, and we can always be loosening our bonds to the Church.

I am going to let you in on a trick of the devil. One thing he does is to seek to convince people that “these times may be bad, but, afterall, there have always been bad times, so I guess these times are really pretty normal”.

Not so. True, there have always been occaisional minor abuses and heretics; but no where near the extent it is today. And it is true that some times in Church history have been worse than others (Arian crisis for example), but today the abuse and heresy is everywhere. This is not normal.

Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.

I have some advice for you: You are still young and pretty bright. Find yourself a good Indult Mass and start attending it. It may take a few months to get used to, since it is completely different than the “banal on the spot production” (as Cardinal Ratzinger called it), which is the Novus Ordo Mass, but you will soon come to understand why the Traditional Mass - the Mass of the Saints - has been called “the greatest thing this side of heaven” That is the safest course today. If you follow that advice, I can assure you that you will not regret it.

 

[bear06]

Are the following also abuses:

1. Hells Angels receiving communion and chasing it with beer.
2. Placing the left over hosts in burlap bags and throwing them into a river.
3. Hosts being dropped all over the ground and stepped on (hundreds of them).
4. Native American Indians in full garb dancing and wailing around the altar, beating on drums and screaming.
5. Pagan rituals taking place at mass as part of the Mass.

Let me guess, you’re getting these off of Novus Ordo Watch. Let’s just take one of these, #2, which Papal Mass did this happen at?

Pope Benedict XIV, Allatae Sunt: (29) “Pope Gelasius in his ninth letter (chap. 26) to the bishops of Lucania condemned the evil practice which had been introduced of women serving the priest at the celebration of Mass… Innocent IV strictly forbade it in his letter to the bishop of Tusculum: ‘Women should not dare to serve at the altar’… We too have forbidden this practice in the same words in Our oft-repeated constitution Etsi Pastoralis, sect. 6, no. 21.”

I find it very funny that you are referring at all to Etsi Pastoralis which derogated from Pope Innocent IV’s decisions on the matter of excorsims. Does this mean that Pope Benedict must have been leading the faithful astray? Honestly, it cracks me up how people take these quotes handed to them by the Remnant or Novus Ordo watch and don’t even know what the entire document is concerning or how the entire document contradicts their theories.

And heresy is heresy. It is true that the heresy of denying the Divinity of Jesus is greater than other heresies; but if a Catholic adheres to even one heresy (regardless of which) he has lost the faith completely. Just as it only takes one mortal sin to remove all sanctifying grace from the soul, so too it takes only one heresy to destroy all supernatural faith.

What heresy again is the Church teaching?