Summorum Pontificum..Does it apply to the SSPX?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Armor_of_Light
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
hudson said:
What are you talking about? The proof is that no licit TLM was allowed for over 10 years in the 70’s to early to mid 80’s. Provide us proof of some approved TLM’s that were being permitted. It was never formally abrogated that is fact, but it was de facto banned and any Priest caught saying it was punished to the point of dismissal. You ask for proof and I gave you news stories from the 70s and 80s and I can produce hundreds more just like it. I cannot find one news story about the TLM being permitted.
Click to expand...
The proof that was being asked for was that the Pope himself banned the TLM.
It was not provided.
…and it never will be.
 
Rich_C said:
If you had to listen to Brickman at every adoration chapel, wouldn’t you ask for something better?
Click to expand...
No, I’d just committ suicide.
Anyway, if the OF Masses I’ve been to lately weren’ trying to give me “a really cool sensory experience with music, and art” it would’ve been a more prayerful experience all around.
Click to expand...
We proabably agree on the taste issue…believe me I would much rather be singing Palestrina than Haugen. And I’d like to stop the piano after communion so we can all have some silent contemplation, but I’m not the only person with tastes.

I’m commenting on the idea that the
NO does not feed our spiritual lives.
Click to expand...
We receive the greates of all gifts at any Mass, and this is our response? Where’s my prime rib?
I would not debate that we are not fed at times, the question is, why are we not fed, and who’s responsibility is it? God’s, who gives everything all the time? Or ours?
 
Rich_C said:
Whether or not there was a *de facto *ban is not an issue of authority, it’s an issue of history.

The TLM all but disappeared. That’s a fact. Many people still wanted it. That’s a fact. Priests who tried to provide it to them were removed from ministry. That’s a fact.

There is no conjection about the above facts, and they are sufficient to show that there was a de facto ban.

I wish you would do me the courtesy of arguing with me instead of dismissing me. Anyway, I never argue on the Internet to convince anyone. That’s an impossible goal, usually. I argue to convince third-party readers who rarely even post.

If any of them are reading now, you’re not doing your position justice.
Click to expand...
I have to back Rich up. I was around back then, and what he says is indeed a fact. It was pretty bad.

Undoubtedly, much of it was documented somewhere. Not everything is on the internet and at our fingertips.
 
Lormar said:
I have to back Rich up. I was around back then, and what he says is indeed a fact. It was pretty bad.

Undoubtedly, much of it was documented somewhere. Not everything is on the internet and at our fingertips.
Click to expand...
Nobody doubts that it was bad, and nobody doubts that liberal Catholics took it upon themselves to state “the TLM is banned”. I was around then too.
The point is, they had no authority to make that statement since the Vatican on down never said so.
It was claimed that is WAS from Rome on down.
THAT is the proof I was asking for.
 
Rich_C said:
The “Agatha Christie” indult is a famous example of the Vatican denying the TLM to people who requested it in the 1970s.

I may start a thread elsewhere to see if anyone can find examples of permitted TLMs between 1969 and 1984. I’m honestly curious to know what happened. As far as I know, it was not allowed at all, from the pope down.
Click to expand...
Here is the claim, above.
The proof of which remains…
 
JustaServant said:
Nobody doubts that it was bad, and nobody doubts that liberal Catholics took it upon themselves to state “the TLM is banned”. I was around then too.
The point is, they had no authority to make that statement since the Vatican on down never said so.
It was claimed that is WAS from Rome on down.
THAT is the proof I was asking for.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, are you looking for a statement from Pope Paul VI saying that the old Mass was abrogated, or are you looking for a statement from him saying that the old Mass was no longer allowed to be said?
 
I think we are way off the topic of the original thread, which had to do with SP and whether it applied to the SSPX.

We should probably create a new thread discussing whether or not the Vatican “banned” the TLM.
 
hudson said:
Not sure what you are talking about. My spiritual needs are fed when I attend the TLM/EF and most of the time are not when I attend the NO. I can’t tell you why, it is something in my soul. So accept it and don’t try and be my psychologist.
Click to expand...
Beleive me I am not qualified for that.
Let me rephrase. What needs do you have that the Eucharist does not satisfy at the
“NO”
Click to expand...
?

Assuming the Eucharist is the source and summit of our lives.
 
JustaServant said:
Here’s the other…
The proof of which remains…
Click to expand...
Once again what are you talking about? What I said was in relation to the following link and is 100% accurate about what the article states. Take it up with the writer of the article if you have a problem with it, I am just quoting history.
news.google.com/newspapers?id=LoQwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4PoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2651,2964385&dq=tridentine+mass+banned&hl=en

Which states and I quote “John Paul, who summoned the archbishop for a Vatican meeting shortly after becoming pope, has yet to speak out on his case. The pontiff recently encouraged bishops to accommodate Catholics’ desires for the use of Latin as much as possible under the Vatican II guidelines, but reiterated the ban on the Tridentine Mass, which was adopted by the 16 century Ecumenical Coucil of Trent – or Tridentum – Italy.”
 
Lormar said:
Just to clarify, are you looking for a statement from Pope Paul VI saying that the old Mass was abrogated, or are you looking for a statement from him saying that the old Mass was no longer allowed to be said?
Click to expand...
Read the quotes above in posts 123 and 124.
I asked for the proof that the TLM was banned “from the Pope on down”.
No Pope ever made such a statement.
One would think a traditional Catholic would agree with this. I know my parents would have. As it proved liberals to be ones making the false statements back then.
The fact that, 40 years later, traditionalists are blaming the Pope, shows me a shifting in philosophy since then.
 
Yeah…we’re off the rails a bit, but my original question was answered (for me anyway).

I like this little scenic side trip!
 
Lormar said:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7729

The above article is a good history of what happened.
Click to expand...
Excellant, thank you.
Here is a quote:
On 3 October 1984, Pope John Paul II promulgated the Indult Quattuor abhinc annos in which he allowed bishops to grant the Old Mass to those faithful who would request it. An indult is a measure by which somebody invested with authority in the Church can grant, in order to favour the salvation of souls (which is the purpose of canon law, before which all laws must bow), an exception to the law (derogation); it is akin to dispensation, but with a wider scope.
Click to expand...
An indult, therefore, presupposes the existence of a law which has to be relaxed, in our case a law which had forbidden or abolished the Old Mass. As we have seen, such a law does not exist, and therefore in this case, strictly speaking, “indult” is a misnomer, since the faithful even today have a right to the Old Mass on the basis of the non-abolished immemorial custom.
Click to expand...
 
This part is important too and not many people know about this:
In 1986 Pope John Paul II appointed a commission of nine cardinals to examine the legal status of the Old Mass. The commission consisted of Agostino Cardinal Casaroli, Bernard Cardinal Gantin, Paul Augustin Cardinal Mayer, Antonio Cardinal Innocenti, Silvio Cardinal Oddi, Petro Cardinal Palazzini, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Alfons Cardinal Stickler and Jozef Cardinal Tomko and it was instructed to examine whether the New Rite of Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI abrogated the Old Rite, and whether a bishop can prohibit his priests from celebrating the Old Mass.
Click to expand...
The commission met in December 1986. Eight of nine cardinals answered that the New Mass had not abrogated the Old Mass. The nine cardinals unanimously determined that Pope Paul VI never gave the bishops the authority to forbid priest from celebrating Mass according to the Missal of St Pius V. The commission judged the conditions for the 1984 indult too restrictive and proposed their relaxation. These conclusions served as functional guidelines for the Commission Ecclesia Dei, but they were never promulgated.
Click to expand...
In this context, it should be noted that the Holy See does recognize the right of the priest to celebrate the traditional Mass; this is borne out by the fact that whenever priests are unjustly suspended for celebrating the Old Mass against the will of their bishops, the Roman Curia always nullifies the penalty whenever the cases are appealed. It is the present jurisprudence of the Church that, upon appeal, any suspension that an Ordinary attempts to inflict on a priest for celebrating the Old Mass against the will of the bishop is automatically nullified.
Click to expand...
 
Lormar said:
This part is important too and not many people know about this:

Quote:
In 1986 Pope John Paul II appointed a commission of nine cardinals to examine the legal status of the Old Mass. The commission consisted of Agostino Cardinal Casaroli, Bernard Cardinal Gantin, Paul Augustin Cardinal Mayer, Antonio Cardinal Innocenti, Silvio Cardinal Oddi, Petro Cardinal Palazzini, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Alfons Cardinal Stickler and Jozef Cardinal Tomko and it was instructed to examine whether the New Rite of Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI abrogated the Old Rite, and whether a bishop can prohibit his priests from celebrating the Old Mass.

The commission met in December 1986. Eight of nine cardinals answered that the New Mass had not abrogated the Old Mass. The nine cardinals unanimously determined that Pope Paul VI never gave the bishops the authority to forbid priest from celebrating Mass according to the Missal of St Pius V. The commission judged the conditions for the 1984 indult too restrictive and proposed their relaxation. These conclusions served as functional guidelines for the Commission Ecclesia Dei, but they were never promulgated.

In this context, it should be noted that the Holy See does recognize the right of the priest to celebrate the traditional Mass; this is borne out by the fact that whenever priests are unjustly suspended for celebrating the Old Mass against the will of their bishops, the Roman Curia always nullifies the penalty whenever the cases are appealed. It is the present jurisprudence of the Church that, upon appeal, any suspension that an Ordinary attempts to inflict on a priest for celebrating the Old Mass against the will of the bishop is automatically nullified.
Reply With Quote
Click to expand...
Which proves the persecution of Priests and the people attached to the TLM was out of order from 1970-1984. Thanks.
 
clem456 said:
Beleive me I am not qualified for that.
Let me rephrase. What needs do you have that the Eucharist does not satisfy at the ?

Assuming the Eucharist is the source and summit of our lives.
Click to expand...
Now see, this is what grind my gears. Right here. I am going to assume that you did not mean to dig, pick, or otherwise instigate.

But…the same question is never asked of Eastern Rite Catholics! They are never told to ‘just get with the program’, and that is what trads are subject to all the time. The eucharist is the source and summit, yes. But everything else about the Mass is important otherwise it wouldn’t be there. And I see the ‘holier than the Pope’ comment a lot as well. What gives?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top