The SSPX and Divine Mercy Sunday

[Timothysis]

What’s wrong with having clear defining terms to separate attendees of the two forms?

Why is it necessary? Why can’t we all be Catholics??? Should one group or the other wear yellow stars on their shirts so that they can be identified instantly?

 

[Ockham]

I agree with you Tim, we should be glad just to be Catholic. However, there are differences in the Church and one of the most distinct is which form of liturgy. Discussion topics vary too.

 

[ciero]

Fair enough. But the Divine Mercy Mass is simply a Mass said after the recitation of the Chaplet at 3:00 Sunday afternoon. It is part of the indulgence granted by the Church in honor of Divine Mercy Sunday. So, the regular calender Mass can still be celebrated on Sunday mornings; the Divine Mercy Mass is simply a Mass at the Hour of Mercy, 3:00.

Its kinda hard to put into words; what I’m asking is, do those groups that celebrate according to the old Missal celebrate a Mass at 3:00 on Divine Mercy Sunday? Since it is such a generous indulgence by the Church I would think that it should be widely available, though like some others have said, even many regular parish Churches do not celebrate a Divine Mercy Mass (I guess some priests are too busy to be bothered with it). Is it necessary to have to an explicit feast according to the old calender in order to celebrate a Mass?

In the EF Mass may not be celebrated after 12 noon. So I would assume no 3pm Mass for the Divine Mercy.

 

[Timothysis]

In the EF Mass may not be celebrated after 12 noon. So I would assume no 3pm Mass for the Divine Mercy.

Ahhh, I was not aware of that. What is the reason?

 

[franklinf]

One need only read the many questions and answers and articles on their website to answer your question. This quote should be enough:
*
“It is not for us to judge his culpability in the destruction of the Church, more devastating now than in any previous pontificate (with the probable exception of pope Paul VI’s). Only God can so judge him.”*

They convict him for “his culpability in the destruction of the Church,” then state that “only God can so judge him.” Nice.

What’s the issue?

Their opinion is that during his pontificate the Church witnessed more devastation than in previous times. They recognize that God, and not they, can judge JP2’s role in that destruction. Pretty fair.

 

[Timothysis]

What’s the issue?

Their opinion is that during his pontificate the Church witnessed more devastation than in previous times. They recognize that God, and not they, can judge JP2’s role in that destruction. Pretty fair.

Yes, pretty fair. How about this?

“During the time of his participation at CAF, frankinf’s postings have done more to devastate this website than any other poster before him. However, it’s not for me to judge.”

Yeah, that’s fair.

 

[Abenadar]

Yes, pretty fair. How about this?

“During the time of his participation at CAF, frankinf’s postings have done more to devastate this website than any other poster before him. However, it’s not for me to judge.”

Those two statements (the one by the SSPX and the one you use as an example above) are nothing alike. You cited this quote, but it seems you didn’t read it:

“It is not for us to judge his culpability in the destruction of the Church, more devastating now than in any previous pontificate (with the probable exception of pope Paul VI’s). Only God can so judge him.”

There ya go, good buddy. It is NOT for the SSPX to JUDGE his culpability…

In other words, JPII may be perfectly, 101% NOT CULPABLE…That doesn’t mean that the Church didn’t seen a lot of devastation during his pontificate, even IF IT WASN’T HIS FAULT AT ALL.

You could substitute the name of any pope, even a saint, put his name in, and not have any accusation at all! How do you not see this? Their statement clearly says two (2) things: 1) During the times that coincide with JPII’s pontificate, the Church was devastated more than any other time. and 2) we (SSPX) cannot judge JPII’s culpability in the matter, leaving the entire thing for God to do.

On the other hand, your example (above) actually lays the blame on franklinf. If you want to compare apples you’d have to write:

“During the time of franklinf’s participation at CAF, postings have done more to devastate this website than at any other time before. However, it’s not for me to judge if franklinf is culpable for the devastation.”

Do I really need to point out these very obvious distinctions?

Yeah, that’s fair.

Yes it is, thanks to my corrections. You’re welcome.

BACK TO THE ISSUE AT HAND…

I believe, as an aside to this thread, you have been asked twice to tell us what the SSPX thinks about JPII, since you seem to think it’s very obvious. Are you going to do that, or, since you’ve already failed once, are you going to start saying that it’s off topic, and refuse to back-up what you said? Why don’t you tell us in your own words, instead of quoting the SSPX and wanting what they said to mean something else. You could start with “The SSPX thinks JPII was _____________.”

 

[Cecilianus]

Ciero,

As a fellow Orthodox in communion with Rome who has joyfully had the opportunity to attend many traditional (though not SSPX) Tridentine Masses, I’m disappointed by your criticism of the SSPX. They have the same attitude towards both the the Liturgy and the fasting as we do. Traditional Catholics do acknowledge that the Church has the power to change the minimum fasting requirements, but they insist on the need for real fasting - for us to do as much as we are able, not in a legalistic fashion, but out of love. We do not judge those who for reasons known to them and God have to eat cheese or even meat on penitential days (Aleut Orthodox never stop eating meat during Lent, for example - they’d starve to death up there), but we do expect asceticism from the faithful, as do traditional RCs. The SSPX recognizes the Pope’s authority to revise or reform the Mass, as it has in fact been reformed many times including at the Council of Trent and also at Vatican II which issued the 1962 Missal that the SSPX uses. What they do not accept is the drastic liturgical deformation. We would NEVER EVER accept a NO version of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom - and, as Pope Benedict pointed out in his book The Nature and Mission of Theology, such a disaster is unthinkable from within the context of Eastern theology which views liturgy in its integrity rather than isolating the bare minimum necessary for validity. The new translation of the Liturgy that the Ruthenian church has imposed is incredibly minor compared to the NO apostasy, yet has still met with huge opposition.

It’s always a saddening state of affairs when an Eastern Catholic criticizes our Western brethren for resisting a crisis which we don’t have to put up with. Go to nothing but the NO Mass complete with liturgical dancers and homilies on Native American Spirituality and homosexual crucifixes and ampitheatre churches and rock music (I’m not exaggerating) for a couple years, and then you can gently rebuke them.

 

[Cecilianus]

Yeah thats why they broke communion with Rome. Realy recognizing Romes rights. I cant believe you cant recognize the inconsistency.

Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated for ordaining bishops without permission of the Pope (rationalizing his conscience by appealing to the necessity of the situation - in an emergency, everybody recognizes that even the Pope’s authority is overshadowed. Heretics and excommunicates on their deathbed can always be reconciled to the Church, for example).

 

[Cecilianus]

Says who, YOU??? This is exactly what I’m talking about!!! Show me a credible source that one can only be a “Traditional” Catholic if you attend the EF. Just one.

Tim, it’s the standard definition of the term “traditional Catholic”; he didn’t make it up. It’s a DEFINITION, not something that can be argued about, as if there were a prior or more fundamental meaning to the word in this context.

 

[Timothysis]

Tim, it’s the standard definition of the term “traditional Catholic”; he didn’t make it up. It’s a DEFINITION, not something that can be argued about, as if there were a prior or more fundamental meaning to the word in this context.

If it is a “standard definition,” then please quote it from a legitimate source. That is not too much to ask, is it?

 

[Cecilianus]

Why is it necessary? Why can’t we all be Catholics??? Should one group or the other wear yellow stars on their shirts so that they can be identified instantly?

Simply because there is such a real, drastic divergence of practice regarding the liturgy and private piety as well as theological attitudes towards the Faith and its expression that the difference can’t be ignored. I feel like a religious alien when I’m around modernist Catholics or when I have to attend the NO liturgy, whereas I feel at home in the Tridentine, Byzantine, Anglican-use, and Maronite liturgies. Talking about the Faith with them is difficult as talking about it with Protestants because of the difference, and they probably find talking about it with me more difficult than talking to Protestants.

And if you want to just “all be Catholics”, why did you make the changes in the first place? All Roman Catholics used to worship and believe as we (traditional Catholics) do. And there is no shortage of schismatic sentiment among the modernists. It was a provincial general of the Vincentian Fathers who informed me that there are two churches, the “pre-Vatican II church” and the “post-Vatican II church”, and that he hoped that the pre-Vatican II church would stop having vocations. Take the log out of your own (collective) eye.

 

[Cecilianus]

If it is a “standard definition,” then please quote it from a legitimate source. That is not too much to ask, is it?

Is common use good enough? I mean, I’ve never heard it used any other way.

 

[ciero]

Ciero,

As a fellow Orthodox in communion with Rome who has joyfully had the opportunity to attend many traditional (though not SSPX) Tridentine Masses, I’m disappointed by your criticism of the SSPX. They have the same attitude towards both the the Liturgy and the fasting as we do. Traditional Catholics do acknowledge that the Church has the power to change the minimum fasting requirements, but they insist on the need for real fasting - for us to do as much as we are able, not in a legalistic fashion, but out of love. We do not judge those who for reasons known to them and God have to eat cheese or even meat on penitential days (Aleut Orthodox never stop eating meat during Lent, for example - they’d starve to death up there), but we do expect asceticism from the faithful, as do traditional RCs. The SSPX recognizes the Pope’s authority to revise or reform the Mass, as it has in fact been reformed many times including at the Council of Trent and also at Vatican II which issued the 1962 Missal that the SSPX uses. What they do not accept is the drastic liturgical deformation. We would NEVER EVER accept a NO version of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom - and, as Pope Benedict pointed out in his book The Nature and Mission of Theology, such a disaster is unthinkable from within the context of Eastern theology which views liturgy in its integrity rather than isolating the bare minimum necessary for validity. The new translation of the Liturgy that the Ruthenian church has imposed is incredibly minor compared to the NO apostasy, yet has still met with huge opposition.

It’s always a saddening state of affairs when an Eastern Catholic criticizes our Western brethren for resisting a crisis which we don’t have to put up with. Go to nothing but the NO Mass complete with liturgical dancers and homilies on Native American Spirituality and homosexual crucifixes and ampitheatre churches and rock music (I’m not exaggerating) for a couple years, and then you can gently rebuke them.

I guess my experience with the SSPX is very different then yours. My experience is that when it comes to the Traditional Mass its very conservative, but when it comes to ascetical practice its very minimalistic. Have you met anyone who has asked to bring back the pre 1914 fasting regulations?

 

[Cecilianus]

I guess my experience with the SSPX is very different then yours. My experience is that when it comes to the Traditional Mass its very conservative, but when it comes to ascetical practice its very minimalistic. Have you met anyone who has asked to bring back the pre 1914 fasting regulations?

Actually, I’ve never discussed it with anyone. But I often see people choose not to receive Communion, and given how unlikely it would be for them to be in mortal sin, the most likely explanation would be because they had eaten breakfast (the Mass I used to go to was at 12:30, said by a parish priest after the Novus Ordo Masses - so some people might not be able to handle fasting from midnight for that long every week. They’re older and physically weaker than I.)

I would describe traditional Roman Catholic ascetical practice today as “non-legalistic”, not “minimalistic”. The Roman Catholic Church gives ascetic minima to follow, on the assumption that the faithful out of piety will in fact go much farther; the Eastern Church gives ascetic standards which the faithful are expected to ordinarily follow, but it’s not a mortal sin to break them for good reasons which are between us and God and our spiritual father. I’ve seen Eastern Catholics break the letter of the fasting law while keeping its spirit (and I know that they have perfectly legitimate reasons); the Church doesn’t judge their souls the way she would the Latin Catholics I see eating meat on Fridays in Lent without a dispensation. The East and the West have different attitudes towards the ascetic rules the Church gives; in the West, they are supposed to be the bare minimum which we must follow on pain of mortal sin, while in the East, much higher standards are given and their application is much looser.

 

[Timothysis]

Is common use good enough? I mean, I’ve never heard it used any other way.

Actually, no. My mom and dad were raised and married on the latin Mass and since 1970 attended the OF because that is what the Church celebrated. Are you going to tell me that they weren’t “Traditional” Catholics?

 

[Timothysis]

And if you want to just “all be Catholics”, why did you make the changes in the first place? All Roman Catholics used to worship and believe as we (traditional Catholics) do. And there is no shortage of schismatic sentiment among the modernists. It was a provincial general of the Vincentian Fathers who informed me that there are two churches, the “pre-Vatican II church” and the “post-Vatican II church”, and that he hoped that the pre-Vatican II church would stop having vocations. Take the log out of your own (collective) eye.

You’re the one with the “Us. vs. Them” attitude, not me. I suggest you consult an eye doctor of your choice.

 

[Cecilianus]

Actually, no. My mom and dad were raised and married on the latin Mass and since 1970 attended the OF because that is what the Church celebrated. Are you going to tell me that they weren’t “Traditional” Catholics?

Yes. It’s a word. Are you going to get offended because of the way the word happens to be used? Saying they’re “Traditional Catholics” is identical to saying that they attend the Latin Mass. If they don’t attend the Latin Mass, why would they want to be called “Traditional Catholics”? It’s like a Catholic going around demanding to be called a Lutheran without ever going to a Lutheran congregation. Or like a homosexual who wants a same-sex union and wants it to be called “marriage”. It isn’t marriage, and that fact isn’t a judgement on same-sex unions (which is a separate question). The Catholic isn’t Lutheran, and that fact alone isn’t a condemnation of Lutheranism. A NO Catholic isn’t a traditional Catholic, and that’s just a linguistic distinction, not a refutation of modernist Catholicism.

 

[Abenadar]

If it is a “standard definition,” then please quote it from a legitimate source. That is not too much to ask, is it?

While Merriam-Webster hasn’t said anything official, it’s been pretty standard, at least for as long as I’ve personally known about the “traditional” movement (from before I even became a “traditional” Catholic), for Catholics who attend the traditional latin Mass to be referred to as “traditional” Catholics. There’s no problem here. I think the problem evolved from how “conservative” Catholics respond to the loose, but relatively standard definition of the term. The problem, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, is that Catholics who don’t attend the TLM/EF suddenly felt slighted by an inference. They felt like “hey, if they’re ‘traditional’ then that means they must think that I’m not. But by golly, I’m a faithful Catholic, and the Church is 2,000 years old, so therefore I must also be a ‘traditional’ Catholic!!!”

Anyway, the point is that the generally accepted definition, as far as my experiences in and out of “traditionalism” goes, is that “trad” usually refers to people who attend the TLM, which is basically 1500 years old. The OF is 40. It isn’t “traditional”, so to speak because it simply belongs to basically one or two generations.

Nobody’s trying to slight you personally by considering himself traditional while considering you “Novus Ordo” or “OF” or “concilliar” or whatever…It’s just an easy way to get a general feel for what you are.

“White” people aren’t white…“Black” people aren’t black…“Indians” aren’t “red”…See what I mean? There are better ways to describe things, but sometimes it’s more simple to just go with what works. Calling a TLM-attendee a “trad” works, imho.

Nobody’s trying to put you down, or make you less of a Catholic, or themselves more of a Catholic. This has constantly been an issue with several people here. Get over it already!

 

[Cecilianus]

You’re the one with the “Us. vs. Them” attitude, not me. I suggest you consult an eye doctor of your choice.

I never claimed that there was real unity of faith within the post-Vatican II mess between the modernists and traditional Catholics. You did, although it was your camp that created and is perpetuating the attitude (e.g., the Vincentian example). Therefore, my attitude is consistent, while yours isn’t. Yes, I do have an “us vs. them” mentality - that’s what I’m arguing. You’re claiming the divergence doesn’t exist while you perpetuate the divergence.