Summorum Pontificum..Does it apply to the SSPX?

[Melchior_1]

If he is a child he has a “right” to food or you will be imprisoned for child endangerment. Some of us need to be fed the TLM because the NO does not feed our spiritual lives. We are children of the Church so the analogy fits.

Using your logic; if I don’t give my child a certain food he will starve to death, despite that there is ample other food available in the house.

He might not like the taste of the food, but he is not deathly allergic to what is available. Therefore there is no obligation on my part to provide this, unless I want to be charitable.

Say my son loves roast beef and fries. I mean he would eat it six meals a day if he could. All I have in the house is burgers and mashed potatoes. He does not like burgers, there’s something about burgers he does not like. It does not fill him. My house also has steak but you know, it ain’t roast beef with fries.

Carry this further, some prefer contemporary style music. If this isn’t available for them to be fed, they will need to accept the food they are offered.

 

[Melchior_1]

The people you’re speaking of include Pope Paul VI and many bishops, of course.

That’s what makes the issue of the Tridentine Mass’ status so confusing.

Although the Pope is the head of the Church, the issue was (and often still are) local. Paul VI provided direction(s), and people simply didn’t listen. In some cases I would say that some Bishops were not even involved and did nothing wrong, people even more local than the Bishops subverted things.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

Again, people took a hold of a situation to suit their own ends. Was it banned or abrogated? No, but people can use that kind of language and verbage to suit what they wanted - change in Church doctrine. These people would have found any way to do this mind you, so I wouldn’t blame the OF or Vatican II for that (not saying you are, of course! )

No, No. I have no doubt that what you say is true. I blame VII for nothing these days. It’s not VII’s fault.

 

[ProVobis]

Paul VI provided direction(s), and people simply didn’t listen. In some cases I would say that some Bishops were not even involved and did nothing wrong, people even more local than the Bishops subverted things.

How can you say that after he relaxed the rules on fasting and abstinence, allowed Saturday vigil Masses to count, not to mention allowing the use of conscience to determine the size of families?

 

[hudson]

Using your logic; if I don’t give my child a certain food he will starve to death, despite that there is ample other food available in the house.

He might not like the taste of the food, but he is not deathly allergic to what is available. Therefore there is no obligation on my part to provide this, unless I want to be charitable.

Say my son loves roast beef and fries. I mean he would eat it six meals a day if he could. All I have in the house is burgers and mashed potatoes. He does not like burgers, there’s something about burgers he does not like. It does not fill him. My house also has steak but you know, it ain’t roast beef with fries.

Carry this further, some prefer contemporary style music. If this isn’t available for them to be fed, they will need to accept the food they are offered.

I hate to continue this cause we could go on forever with this analogy. Lets say you have broccoli and carrots at the house and they both have the same nutritional value to him. He finds that broccoli has a bad taste and gives him gas, but he loves carrots. There would be no point of forcing the child to only eating broccoli would there? In fact it would make sense to offer the child only carrots since that is what is best for him.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

How can you say that after he relaxed the rules on fasting and abstinence, allowed Saturday vigil Masses to count, not to mention allowing the use of conscience to determine the size of families?

I did not know that.

Didn’t people always use their consciences to determine family size? Maybe better formed consciences perhaps?

 

[Melchior_1]

I hate to continue this cause we could go on forever with this analogy. Lets say you have broccoli and carrots at the house and they both have the same nutritional value to him. He finds that broccoli has a bad taste and gives him gas, but he loves carrots. There would be no point of forcing the child to only eating broccoli would there? In fact it would make sense to offer the child only carrots since that is what is best for him.

The difference is that in my example, Roast Beef, Steaks, and Burgers are all the same animal, just in different forms. Your example is two different items entirely.

Distinct difference.

 

[Rich_C]

Although the Pope is the head of the Church, the issue was (and often still are) local. Paul VI provided direction(s), and people simply didn’t listen. In some cases I would say that some Bishops were not even involved and did nothing wrong, people even more local than the Bishops subverted things.

I’m not talking about the whole fallout of the Council, just the abrogation/banning of the TLM after 1969 (or earlier).

I know that English Catholics petitioned Pope Paul VI for permission to have the 1962 missal/TLM and he refused (couched as an agreement, he let them use the 1967 missal instead of the 1969).

I believe Pope Benedict when he says it wasn’t abrogated of course, but if it wasn’t, you have to admit it looks like it was at least banned by no one less than a pope.

 

[Melchior_1]

How can you say that after he:

relaxed the rules on fasting and abstinence

• Has happened before, has nothing to do with the Form of Mass.

allowed Saturday vigil Masses to count

• Has nothing to do with the Form of Mass.

not to mention allowing the use of conscience to determine the size of families?

• Provided NFP is used, this was always an option for Catholics, was it not? Can you provide documentation that shows that the Church said “have sex and large families, even though your spouse has a crippling mental illness”? And what does this have to do with the Form of Mass?

 

[Melchior_1]

you have to admit it looks like it was at least banned by no one less than a pope.

Perception is greater than reality.

 

[Rich_C]

Perception is greater than reality.

I know not all of us can see the matrix.

Is there somewhere in the wrold where the Missal of 1962 was licitedly used between 1969 and 1984? I just not aware of any.

Please burst my perception with your reality.

 

[hudson]

The difference is that in my example, Roast Beef, Steaks, and Burgers are all the same animal, just in different forms. Your example is two different items entirely.

Distinct difference.

lol not really. I was just using two kinds of vegetables as the example, but any like food would do. Even using your example, there are different “items” of the cow that make up the food described. So my analogy works as well as yours and anyone that reads my post will get the point.

 

[Melchior_1]

I know not all of us can see the matrix.

Is there somewhere in the wrold where the Missal of 1962 was licitedly used between 1969 and 1984? I just not aware of any.

Please burst my perception with your reality.

What I’m getting at is that it looked like it was banned, but it wasn’t officially banned. The optics (ie; the actions and words of others) had it look like it was banned, but it wasn’t.

 

[Rich_C]

What I’m getting at is that it looked like it was banned, but it wasn’t officially banned. The optics (ie; the actions and words of others) had it look like it was banned, but it wasn’t.

Alright, I’ll accept your premise if you can tell me what word describes the situation where from the holy father down, the TLM was not allowed to be celebrated, if not “banned.”

 

[Armor_of_Light]

Alright, I’ll accept your premise if you can tell me what word describes the situation where from the holy father down, the TLM was not allowed to be celebrated, if not “banned.”

I think that’s what BroJR was getting at earlier. It was ‘banned’ because something else inherited the title of ‘Ordinary’ pushing the old ‘Ordinary’ to the back burner.

 

[Melchior_1]

I think that’s what BroJR was getting at earlier. It was ‘banned’ because something else inherited the title of ‘Ordinary’ pushing the old ‘Ordinary’ to the back burner.

Yeah, that’s pretty much what I’m getting at too. The actions of some ont he local level sure didn’t help.

For example, Pope Paul VI didn’t say to sack statues and the like, that was all local.

 

[PJM]

=Armor of Light;10594107]I root for the SSPX, although I’m not a member…let’s get that out of the way. Maybe that clouds my judgement…I don’t know.

I always thought that SP applied to the SSPX as well, after all…they are catholic. It does not specifically name the SSPX of course. Why would it? At the time, they were…what shall we say?..in full schism perhaps? But now, they are not, so it applies. Right?

Thanks

NOT in their philosophy if I understand thier position correctly.

TRUTH friend is singular as is our God and our Faith beliefs.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

Yeah, that’s pretty much what I’m getting at too. The actions of some ont he local level sure didn’t help.

For example, Pope Paul VI didn’t say to sack statues and the like, that was all local.

BroJR also said:

“since the Church has no obligation to answer questions about anything other than dogma and morality.”

OK…but holy cow. We’re flopping along like dying fish here. Why is this stuff (and all the other silliness) addressed? They may say that there are bigger fish to fry (get it?)

 

[Rich_C]

Yeah, that’s pretty much what I’m getting at too. The actions of some ont he local level sure didn’t help.

For example, Pope Paul VI didn’t say to sack statues and the like, that was all local.

Well, I won’t keep derailing this thread.

 

[JustaServant]

Yeah, that’s pretty much what I’m getting at too. The actions of some ont he local level sure didn’t help.

For example, Pope Paul VI didn’t say to sack statues and the like, that was all local.

Bold mine.
That is exactly it.
On the other hand, the answer to one extreme is not another extreme.
Just because a few parishes made bad decisions on a local level, does not mean they speak for the whole Church.
Nor should those who oppose such local decisions, decide for themselves that THEY and THEY ALONE speak for the Catholic Church and do, essentially, the same act they criticized the “locals” for: speak for the Catholic Church under self-appointed authority.
The answer to one extreme is not another extreme.