Three points on the recent SSPX ordinations [Peters]

[giuseppeTO]

Claire … here are my humble comments …

Just a question: does the SSPX claim the OF is invalid? I’ve heard all the reasons why they consider it inferior to the EF, but if they hold it is invalid can they reconcile with the Church? IMHO, it would be beneficial to have both forms of the mass available in our parishes.

The SSPX faithful consider the OF valid (as written in the GIRM) as long as the priest is true to the matter, form, and intent as prescribed for the validity of the sacrament. That would mean that those who use invalid matter (dorito chips, homemade bread which is leaven or has added ingredience, etc), change/ad lib the words of the Consecration and deviate from the form, or who do not believe in the True Presence would invalidate the OF.

We do consider it inferior because it has a Protestantising spirit. It was developed to appease non-Catholics, or at least not present an impediment to their reunification with the church, and was modeled along the lines of Cranmer and Luther’s Communion Service (you cannot tell the difference these days between them) with references to oblation and the sacrificial aspects minimized in favor of the community Eucharistic meal.

However, one poster mentioned that a SSPX priest would fly 500 miles to give extreme unction to someone. This seems, well, extreme. Does this indicate that members of SSPX think only their sacraments are valid and the Church’s sacraments are not??

This is not so much a issue of Sacrament being valid, but of it being as efficacious as the new post-V2 sacrament. Extreme Unction can only be given when in danger of death and is different enough from the new sacrament to give pause to most traditional Catholics. The new sacrament, anointing of the sick, can be given frequently. If we are to believe in the “effects” of the Sacrament, that is, the grace it bestows, then it behooves us also to believe in the need for its “validity.” There is not much to suggest that the new form of the sacrament is invalid, but it was changed in both matter and form and that is enough to give some of us folks a reason to request the form codified by the Council of Trent when in danger of death. When you speak of plenary indulgences to modern Catholics, they may look at you like you have two heads.

I think all those SSPX priests would be a blessing to my diocese if they were willing to go into (either as a regular assignment or on a rotating basis) the regular parishes and serve under our bishop. But if they claimed only the sacraments they administer are valid, that couldn’t work.

It would certainly be great when this happens but you will only get the sacraments in the EF from SSPX priests. Their formation and priestly training is rooted in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Tridentine form of the sacraments. They would not know how to offer Mass or sacraments in the OF … many have never seen it. It is not the case that they are valid because they are conferred by an SSPX priest. But the spirit of the council is innovation … we have seen it lead to invalidity in Australia and sacrilege in other places and Sacraments are not tamper-proof.

I ask this because I met a married couple who believe that the OF isn’t valid and would only attend the TLM on Sunday.

Well, that is their opinion only. The are probably afraid of not knowing for sure, one way or the other. I do not attend the OF but it not so much out of fear of invalidity.

 

[rfpapcun]

Yes, the SSPX has made a major point of supporting the validity of the Novus Ordo sacraments. Several issues of their American magazine, The Angelus, were devoted to this topic.

However, I might add, many Traditionalists nonetheless consider the Novus Ordo sacraments to be problematical (i.e., possibly invalid, but one can’t be sure). Such Traditionalist also consider the SSPX position in this regard to be based on political factors.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Thank you for your response. But, the question remains. If, after all these years SSPX has been unable to revive the Church, what will happen that will cause the ordained (priests and Bishops) to suddenly embrace tradition and pull the people in the pews with them? Or, vice versa?

The SSPX never set out to replace the hierarchy. Their aim was more modest. Mgr Lefebvre said, “We will keep the pilot light alight until the church decides to re-ignite the oven”. In the past decade i have seen attempts to revive the trad. ways of the Church, sometimes in very famous shrines in several countries, but they have literally forgotten how to do it.

If anybody wants to know, they need only go to their local SSPX centre, where the Living Tradition is still alive. By now, an entire generation has been raised, and have children of their own – imbued with the trad Catholic way. No, they don’t get everything right all the time. But they have done all this despite everything the world - AND the ‘Mainstream hierarchy’ could throw at them. For this I salute them. I do not deny the heroic work done elsewhere, but I insist that the SSPX set themselves a limited, do-able task, and are succeeding.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Yes, the SSPX has made a major point of supporting the validity of the Novus Ordo sacraments. Several issues of their American magazine, The Angelus, were devoted to this topic.

However, I might add, many Traditionalists nonetheless consider the Novus Ordo sacraments to be problematical (i.e., possibly invalid, but one can’t be sure). Such Traditionalist also consider the SSPX position in this regard to be based on political factors.

On the contrary. The words of confirmation in the NO do not seem to fulfil the requirements for validity. the NO baptism omits at least 4 of the exorcisms, such that there are now 2 full-time (mainstream) exorcists in Italy doing what should have been done at baptism. The Rite of ordination leaves doubt where there was certainty. As our SSPX priest used to say from the pulpit, “We’re not making any of this up”. So what is a would-be faithful Catholic to do?

 

[Hyacinth_II]

Yes, that’s it, actually. The effects of your actions continue past the actions themselves. So, how will SSPX have any affect on anything in the future? Will people suddenly forget their origin and their disobedient/schismatic acts?

Even if they work through that, realistically, what will 500 priests actually do? They are all in their own chapels, their reason d’entre is that the rest of us are wrong and the NO is wrong and that they alone are preserving tradition. What happens next? What does SSPX want? A return to the Latin Mass? A return to piety? Most married Cathoilics of child bearing age use artificial birth control - will the TLM suddenly change that? What is the plan?

If you think that SSPX is going to be regularized, then what is the plan beyond that? Will SSPX ever be more than a niche?

What will ultimately bring our fellow Catholics back to believing what Catholics ought to believe?

The Catholic church teaches that artificial birth control is forbidden. This has never been changed, not even by Vatican II. Those that use artificial birth control are disobedient to the church and the Pope also. What is the practice of the Church in the case of sinners? Reconciliation and repentance.

Disobedience on the part of lay people is no less grevious than that of the clergy. It is just that the disobedience of the SSPX is in the news and magnified for the whole world to see. The world likes to be judgemental…which is not their role. God is our judge and only He.

We all need to pray and ask God’s forgiveness…and ask for healing in our Church. Have faith in God. Listen to His Desciple Pope Benedict XVI whom He works through. From HIm (God) will come leadership and the answer to your questions.

 

[rkrispies]

On the contrary. The words of confirmation in the NO do not seem to fulfil the requirements for validity. the NO baptism omits at least 4 of the exorcisms, such that there are now 2 full-time (mainstream) exorcists in Italy doing what should have been done at baptism. The Rite of ordination leaves doubt where there was certainty. As our SSPX priest used to say from the pulpit, “We’re not making any of this up”. So what is a would-be faithful Catholic to do?

Would it be possible to get a link to see these compared side-by-side? Or at least a link to each set of sacramental rubrics?

Thanks in advance
Chris

 

[pnewton]

The SSPX never set out to replace the hierarchy. .

On the contrary. The words of confirmation in the NO do not seem to fulfil the requirements for validity.

If the SSPX does not think they should replace the heirarchy, then they should stop promoting such hooey as this . It is not up to THE SOCIETY of ony one else to determine form but rather, oh yeah, the hierarchy; the Holy Father, the Curia, and the like.

This continuing questioning of validity will either be the undoing of bringing the SSPX back or at least splitting (of spitting) the more extreme SSPXer’s out.

 

[otjm]

This is not so much a issue of Sacrament being valid, but of it being as efficacious as the new post-V2 sacrament. Extreme Unction can only be given when in danger of death and is different enough from the new sacrament to give pause to most traditional Catholics. The new sacrament, anointing of the sick, can be given frequently. If we are to believe in the “effects” of the Sacrament, that is, the grace it bestows, then it behooves us also to believe in the need for its “validity.” There is not much to suggest that the new form of the sacrament is invalid, but it was changed in both matter and form and that is enough to give some of us folks a reason to request the form codified by the Council of Trent when in danger of death.

There is no lie so successful as a half truth, and there is no faster way to tear down a reputation than by a whispering campaign. That there are those among the SSPX - and by this I mean the priests, bishops, and those who identify themselves as parishoners or followers of the SSPX - who question the validity of the sacraments as the Church in the Roman rite now practices them is without doubt; the evidence is irrefutable. That is not to say that all, or a majority of either the laity followers of the clergy so hold. But that they will be required to give assent that the sacraments as practiced are valid - on that you can bet the last dollar you will make and every one in between then and now. It is obvious that the laity are not going to go through that; the essence of the disagreement is between the cvlergy and the Pope. That some people cannot tell the difference between form and substance should not be surprising; it is hardly a new issue and has nothing to do witht he Church. But we do have some folks who cannot understand the difference between what the Church has, and always has had authority over, and what it does not and never had authority over. In particular, they tend to look at Trent as the ultimate defining act of the Church against which all else is to be measured, not realizing that what Trent said on issues was simply a judgement of what was at that time best praxis. In other words, they move praxis to the area of infallible procalmations, which it is not.

I suspect that one of the dividing areas, assuming that Rome and the bishops can come to some agreement, will be over praxis.

 

[JReducation]

If the SSPX does not think they should replace the heirarchy, then they should stop promoting such hooey as this . It is not up to THE SOCIETY of ony one else to determine form but rather, oh yeah, the hierarchy; the Holy Father, the Curia, and the like.

This continuing questioning of validity will either be the undoing of bringing the SSPX back or at least splitting (of spitting) the more extreme SSPXer’s out.

I have a problem with “communion” that is very intellectualized. What I see from some lay people on these forums who are supporters of the SSPX is that they tend to intellectualize their communion with the Church. It seems that communion is reduced to the documents that came before Vatican II and the popes before Vatican II (only some popes at that). They also seem to follow the guidance of some saints and doctors that came before Vatican II.

I have never seen a lay person on these threads who support the beatification of Bl. John XXIII or any of his teachings, the beatification of Bl. Mother Teresa or any of her teachings or her spirituality regarding obedience, or the spirituality and discipline of someone like St. Jose Maria Escriva and his unwavering love and trust of the Church, the popes, the bishops, and religious or a Francis of Assisi who said that the faithful must obey the bishop and the pope even if they knew better than the bishop or the pope. Who made all of his spiritual sons and daughters promise to live by this obedience to this day and to offer what you feel may be a mistake and obey anyway.

To me, this is selective communion. The mind picks and chooses what it wants to follow and what it wants to ignore or condemn, such as the words of confirmation or ordination in the new ritual.

What I have trouble with is that the priests of the SSPX whom I have met, come across more desirous of communion with Rome, than their lay followers. They seem more willing to consider the thoughts of Vatican II, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. One SSPX priest whom I met on a trip to MN was one of the most soft spoken and happy people I have ever met. When I asked him if he knew about CAF, he said he did not. I told him about what lay followers of SSPX say on CAF and he was perplexed. I recall that the one thing that perplexed him the most was the idea that every priest of the SSPX agrees with Archbishop Lefebvre.

He carefully explained (a flight from FL to MN is long) the SSPX is a secular society and as such they do not have the bounds of obedience to the leadership as religious do to their major superiors. While they (the priests) do follow the inspiration to preserve tradition as necessary for the Church and to protect the Church from abuses, many of them agree that the Archbishop violated the law; therefore, the state of being ordained and suspend is a very sad reality that causes them much pain every day. They want to be part of the incardinated clergy.

My take from this very humble priest was that some of them are more willing to negotiate and compromise than some of the laity within the SSPX. I got a very good impression from him. I came away understanding why the Holy Father is concerned about the preists in the society. They’re not all on the same page as their found or as many of the laity who represent them on these forums.

In fairness to these young men, I propose charity in representing them. Charity would mean that those who are members of the SSPX laity remember that many of these young men do want tradition, but they also are open to the documents, decrees, saints and popes of the post Vatican II Church. This one young man was in love with Mother Teresa and her life among the non Christian Indians. Her charity was his greatest inspiration, with little concern that she never tried to convert anyone, only to love people and let grace do its work.

I think those of us who are not that familiar with the SSPX would learn more if we spoke directly with some of their priests and religious. I’m beginning to get the impression that there is growing gap between the SSPX clerics and the SSPX laity.

I may be wrong. It’s my impression.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[PaulinVA]

The new sacrament, anointing of the sick, can be given frequently. If we are to believe in the “effects” of the Sacrament, that is, the grace it bestows, then it behooves us also to believe in the need for its “validity.” There is not much to suggest that the new form of the sacrament is invalid, but it was changed in both matter and form and that is enough to give some of us folks a reason to request the form codified by the Council of Trent when in danger of death.

It would certainly be great when this happens but you will only get the sacraments in the EF from SSPX priests. Their formation and priestly training is rooted in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Tridentine form of the sacraments. They would not know how to offer Mass or sacraments in the OF … many have never seen it. It is not the case that they are valid because they are conferred by an SSPX priest. But the spirit of the council is innovation … we have seen it lead to invalidity in Australia and sacrilege in other places and Sacraments are not tamper-proof.

There are only seven Sacraments.

I am greatly troubled that some believe there are more than seven - as in Sacrament 7a - Extreme Unction, 7b Anointing of the Sick.

The discussions on the TC forum have been civil lately, and very informative. I do enjoy engaging in them.

Sometimes they are troubling, though. I’m sure others might feel the same about some of my posts.

How can we get out of this mess?

 

[I_Believe]

Yes, that’s it, actually. The effects of your actions continue past the actions themselves. So, how will SSPX have any affect on anything in the future? …

Even if they work through that, realistically, what will 500 priests actually do? …

Will SSPX ever be more than a niche?

What will ultimately bring our fellow Catholics back to believing what Catholics ought to believe?

Paul, what the Society wants is for the Crown be placed back on Our Savior’s head.

And it’s going to take time. Having 2 forms of the Latin Rite will remain an obstacle. If the practice of traditional Catholicism and the Gregorian Rite remain options rather than the rule, then I think what we will see after the Society is brought back in full communion, is an increase in attendance at their Masses, and a slight growth of registered parishioners. There are many Catholics out there who do not go to the SSPX Mass because of the current situation. Once regularization occurs, I’m sure many who long for the TLM will go to their Masses, especially if the Society Mass is the only option. And hopefully, old Catholic churches that have been closed due to merging of parishes, will be made available to the Society. Many Society Chapels are ex Protestant buildings.

It’s a huge hurdle, and you are right about the stigma. The Society was branded renegade. Even to this day, a Diocese will sell a Catholic church to a Protestant denomination, but not to the SSPX. Look what happened to the Pope when he lifted the excommunications. It is a sad day when our Holy Father has to write a letter to his Bishops in defense of his concern for souls.

H.H. BXVI to his Bishops, after the lifting of the excommunications, while refering to the SSPX…

Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate.** And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.** vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

Everyone should read the entire letter. Not once, but several times. It’s the whole package, and all we need to know until we see the fruits of the talks between the Society and Rome. We want answers ? It’s all right there in our Holy Father’s words. It was addressed to his Bishops, including the SSPX, but all Catholics can learn much from it. Those of us aware of all the fuss, and also the average parishioner who isn’t aware of it.

He pulls no punches in the letter. He makes it clear he has seen bad behavior from some in the Society, and also points out he has seen it in “church circles” as well. Unpleasant is the term he used “churchside”.

But H.H. sees a light shining forth. He states in the letter, that he believes the SSPX clergy embraced the priesthood for the right reason. People should realize that H.H. sees the SSPX and it’s flock as Catholics. H.H. isn’t patting Bishop Fellay on the back quite yet, but he’s got Fellay’s back. It’s right there in that letter.

We have a Pope who sees the good in the SSPX. Since the MP SP, he’s been called a “perfect liberal” by Bishop Fellay. He has since had the SSPX reject terms to begin the regularization process. And despite this, he has lifted the excommunications ! And despite the fuss about the recent ordinations, the talks move forward.

The stigma means nothing now. It needs to stop. Our Holy Father wants reconciliation and healing. All of this bickering we see on the forums is a denial of his guidance. We need to shut up. Cardinal Hoyos advised we shut up awhile back, referring to internet forums. And I think his phrase “internal matter” was a hint as well, though it’s often cited in another context. It’s all on the table now. Everyone knows we have a problem. And H.H. is dealing with it. He’s a very good Pope. And considering what has fell into his lap, and the cross he has had thrust upon him for daring to acknowledge Tradition, I’m very moved by his reaction to it all.

Paul, to answer your last question “What will ultimately bring our fellow Catholics back to believing what Catholics ought to believe ?”

The practice of our Faith is the answer. This would have to include raising our children as Catholics in the traditional manner. Parochial schools. Sending our children to public schools and Catholic schools staffed by lay teachers is not comparable to a traditional Catholic education. This is where the SSPX schools come in. In this day when we don’t have enough nuns to teach in our Catholic grade schools, the Society schools still provide the teaching of the faith to their students. The building of Faith in these schools is of utmost importance. They are modeled after the old Parochial schools. The traditional Catholic education, and the traditional family life, is what sustained the rate of vocations. There were enough clergy and nuns to keep up with the growth of the Church. It worked.
Raising children in the traditional Catholic manner, at the very least, makes our children aware that discerning a vocation is a timeless part of our Faith. They know it’s done and why it’s so important. And if they choose to discern a vocation, they will do so with a solid understanding of the faith.

Even if the SSPX’s “return” isn’t a quick fix, it’s a good thing to put a dent in the priest shortage AND make it OK to practice Catholicism as our Grandparents and Great Grandparents did. Same Mass, same Catholic mindset.

 

[PaulinVA]

There are many Catholics out there who do not go to the SSPX Mass because of the current situation. Once regularization occurs, I’m sure many who long for the TLM will go to their Masses, especially if the Society Mass is the only option. And hopefully, old Catholic churches that have been closed due to merging of parishes, will be made available to the Society. Many Society Chapels are ex Protestant buildings.

How does this help the Church as a whole? How does the Society become more than a niche?

We have a Pope who sees the good in the SSPX. Since the MP SP, he’s been called a “perfect liberal” by Bishop Fellay. He has since had the SSPX reject terms to begin the regularization process. And despite this, he has lifted the excommunications ! And despite the fuss about the recent ordinations, the talks move forward.

Paul, to answer your last question “What will ultimately bring our fellow Catholics back to believing what Catholics ought to believe ?”

The practice of our Faith is the answer. This would have to include raising our children as Catholics in the traditional manner. Parochial schools. Sending our children to public schools and Catholic schools staffed by lay teachers is not comparable to a traditional Catholic education. This is where the SSPX schools come in. In this day when we don’t have enough nuns to teach in our Catholic grade schools, the Society schools still provide the teaching of the faith to their students.
.

I’m sorry, but I see this as good for the SSPX, but I don’t see what the greater Church gets out of it.

I understand what you are saying about Catholic identity. I agree that too few people are properly enculturated as Catholics. I don’t see a return to parochial schools taught by nuns (and nuns are pretty liberal nowadays, anyway). I don’t see the TLM replacing the NO. I agree that we have devolved into a great mess. But I don’t know what the answer is.

So, the task is how to bring back certain traditional elements without the faithful and semi faithful bolting.

 

[pnewton]

We have a Pope who sees the good in the SSPX. Since the MP SP, he’s been called a “perfect liberal” by Bishop Fellay. He has since had the SSPX reject terms to begin the regularization process. And despite this, he has lifted the excommunications ! And despite the fuss about the recent ordinations, the talks move forward.

I like this. Our Holy Father should serve as an example to us all.

 

[I_Believe]

How does this help the Church as a whole? How does the Society become more than a niche?

I’m sorry, but I see this as good for the SSPX, but I don’t see what the greater Church gets out of it.

I understand what you are saying about Catholic identity. I agree that too few people are properly enculturated as Catholics. I don’t see a return to parochial schools taught by nuns (and nuns are pretty liberal nowadays, anyway). I don’t see the TLM replacing the NO. I agree that we have devolved into a great mess. But I don’t know what the answer is.

So, the task is how to bring back certain traditional elements without the faithful and semi faithful bolting.

Paul, all I can say is that traditionalists have nothing whatsoever to do with the current crisis. The priest shortage, the sex scandal, the liturgical abuse, etc.

I believe traditional Catholicism is the solution. If the majority of Bishops are happy with the way things are now, then we’ll run out of priests. It’s that simple. I shudder to think of the day when Consecrated Hosts are shipped via ups to rural parishes to be distributed by laity.

If our young priests embrace Tradition and the TLM, over time, we’ll be OK. Anything short of that, then we had better get used to being a minority religion.

 

[I_Believe]

I like this. Our Holy Father should serve as an example to us all.

Yes, and if those on both sides will trust him, we’ll be better off for it.

He’s a good Pope.

 

[PaulinVA]

Paul, all I can say is that traditionalists have nothing whatsoever to do with the current crisis. The priest shortage, the sex scandal, the liturgical abuse, etc.

I believe traditional Catholicism is the solution. If the majority of Bishops are happy with the way things are now, then we’ll run out of priests. It’s that simple. I shudder to think of the day when Consecrated Hosts are shipped via ups to rural parishes to be distributed by laity.

If our young priests embrace Tradition and the TLM, over time, we’ll be OK. Anything short of that, then we had better get used to being a minority religion.

Oh, I agree that the traditional Catholics aren’t responsible for the mess we are in. It’s the ordained who are responsible.

If traditional Catholicism is the answer, how? Say a young priest from Mount St. Mary’s in Maryland is assigned to my parish. He has a love of the TLM, and is conservative/traditional. What’s the plan? My altar doesn’t even face correctly. We all face north! What is one priest going to do?

Do we have to wait for these guys to become Bishops - and hope there’s more trads than not?

 

[otjm]

Paul, all I can say is that traditionalists have nothing whatsoever to do with the current crisis. The priest shortage, the sex scandal, the liturgical abuse, etc.

I believe traditional Catholicism is the solution. If the majority of Bishops are happy with the way things are now, then we’ll run out of priests. It’s that simple. I shudder to think of the day when Consecrated Hosts are shipped via ups to rural parishes to be distributed by laity.

If our young priests embrace Tradition and the TLM, over time, we’ll be OK. Anything short of that, then we had better get used to being a minority religion.

The priest shortage started when priests, who were ordained prior to and shortly subsequent to Vatican 2 started leaving. Interestingly, the majority of them left to get married. and most of that loss was of priests who were ordained prior to Vatican 2.

The sex scandal is not exactly new; it is more that the world had no idea how deadly harmful sexual abuse to children was re: their lifetime. That, and it took attorneys to break it out into the open. Granted that we have had some homosexual bishops, the problem was more a series of issues: 1) true lack of knowldedge on the part of many bishops of what was actually happening (many lawsuits were the first notice that abuse had occured previously); 2) psychologists and psychiatrists who held out that they could “cure” the abuser, and reliance on their expertise, and 3) clericalism in the highest order, coupled with an intense desire to create no scandal. There were other issues in addition. But keep in mind that many of the abusers were priests who were ordained well before Vatican 2.

Who were the liturgical abusers? Priests who were raised in the TLM, and were ordained prior to Vatican 2 were the ones leading the charge.

All of this was during a time of traditional Catholicism.

NOTE: do not presume that I am blaming traditional anything - Catholicism, catechesis, traditionalists, the EF. REad very carefully what I ahve written. You want a cure, and you are sure that the cure is the reintroduction of the TLM.

It ain’t. The problem is nowhere near as simplistic as that.

We will be a minority religion as long as secualrism is the attitude of the land. Think not? Look at Europe, which has had secualrism at its core far longer than the US. It has nothing to do with young priests embracing, or not embracing the EF.

None of this is a criticism of the EF. It is simply to point out that your view of the cure cfails to understand the disease.

 

[JReducation]

The priest shortage started when priests, who were ordained prior to and shortly subsequent to Vatican 2 started leaving. Interestingly, the majority of them left to get married. and most of that loss was of priests who were ordained prior to Vatican 2.

The sex scandal is not exactly new; it is more that the world had no idea how deadly harmful sexual abuse to children was re: their lifetime. That, and it took attorneys to break it out into the open. Granted that we have had some homosexual bishops, the problem was more a series of issues: 1) true lack of knowldedge on the part of many bishops of what was actually happening (many lawsuits were the first notice that abuse had occured previously); 2) psychologists and psychiatrists who held out that they could “cure” the abuser, and reliance on their expertise, and 3) clericalism in the highest order, coupled with an intense desire to create no scandal. There were other issues in addition. But keep in mind that many of the abusers were priests who were ordained well before Vatican 2.

Who were the liturgical abusers? Priests who were raised in the TLM, and were ordained prior to Vatican 2 were the ones leading the charge.

All of this was during a time of traditional Catholicism.

NOTE: do not presume that I am blaming traditional anything - Catholicism, catechesis, traditionalists, the EF. REad very carefully what I ahve written. You want a cure, and you are sure that the cure is the reintroduction of the TLM.

It ain’t. The problem is nowhere near as simplistic as that.

We will be a minority religion as long as secualrism is the attitude of the land. Think not? Look at Europe, which has had secualrism at its core far longer than the US. It has nothing to do with young priests embracing, or not embracing the EF.

None of this is a criticism of the EF. It is simply to point out that your view of the cure cfails to understand the disease.

OTJM’s post is very accurate. The problems that we are facing today we inherited. In fact, most dioceses and religious communities have a much more difficult time getting the older generation of religious and clergy to be orthodox than the younger generation.

I’ll give you an example. My community uses only the OF. We celebrate it in English or Spanish. The brothers and the laity are very devout and reverent. However, the community is also very young. It’s only a few years old. Our oldest brother is 57 and our youngest is 25. We are a community that wears a habit, we pray the liturgy of the hours in common, we stop what we are doing for community meals, community recreation, to do shores around the house, for periods of silence, for lectio divina (separate from the grand silence), for rosary, for the Chaplet of Divine Mercy and for caring for each other. We spend about four hours a day with the laity whom we serve. The rest of the day is spent in community. That includes prayer and community functions.

We visit our biological family only four days a year, but we close our ministries for 10 days each year for all of our brothers to go on retreat together. We own nothing individually. The little that we own in common is in trust for the future generations of brothers. We do not have the legal right to sell it. We do not have the legal right to inherit money from our parents or relatives, because we give away that right by signing a legal will that makes someone else our heir, immediately when we make vows.

I could go on and spell out the entire rule of St. Francis and our constitutions. But that’s not the point. The point is that the problem is not as simple as many think. This is not a problem that was born yesterday with the Baby Boomers. We have several of them in our community. So do such communities as the Poor Clares of Perpetual Adoration, the Franciscans of the Renewal, the Dominican Sisters of Mary, the Dominican Sisters of St. Cecilia, the Franciscans of the Immaculate, the Carthusians, the Trappists, the Capuchins, the Carmelties and he Dominican Friars.

Every generation has its problem children. The problem is that today we know about these problems. Our means of communication are much better. It sounds as if all heck had just broken loose. These problems have been brewing for years.

On that note, the EF will not be the solution. It is beautiful to have that option for the laity or those religious communities who want to embrace it. However, the proof is that there are many faithful religious brothers, sisters, priests, as well as faithful secular priests who are very fond of he OF and celebrate it very well. Look at the Franciscan Missioanries of the Eternal Word. They even do it in Latin. Other communities, such as mine and the Sisters of St. Cecilia celebrate it in English.

The conversion that we need goes above the form of the liturgy. It’s a conversion from a society of secularism to a humane and moral society. We do not want to do away with the secular. Secular is good, secularism is not. Good grief, if we got rid of the secular we would have to fire Pope Benedict XVI, he’s a secular priest. No no no, don’t want to do that.

We want to combat secularism and mistrust. These are the two greatest enemies of humanity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[numealinesimpet]

Would it be possible to get a link to see these [Traditional vs. Novus Ordo Rites of the Sacraments] compared side-by-side? Or at least a link to each set of sacramental rubrics?

Thanks in advance

With due respect to other posters, it is encouraging to see, & I thank you, Chris/rkrispies, for an unemotional & objective request for facts, instead of an attempted character analysis of those who dare to rock the boat.

I haven’t been able to google a concise summary of this, so here are some notes, ‘from various sources’. The actual text of the words & actions is, however, completely accurate.
We should start with the most contentious of the ‘updated’ Sacraments….

CONFIRMATION
The New Order of Confirmation was promulgated on Aug. 15, 1971. The form and the matter of the sacrament have been changed.
The traditional form for the sacrament of confirmation is:–
► “I sign you with the Sign of the Cross, and I confirm you with the Chrism of salvation. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”

The new form in the New Rite for the sacrament of confirmation is:–
●** “N., receive the seal of the Gift of the Holy Spirit.”**

As we can see, the traditional form of Confirmation has been fundamentally changed.
The new form of words actually uses the form that is used in the Eastern Rites. But there is a big difference …

In the Eastern Rite of Confirmation, when the form is pronounced by the bishop, he imposes his hands, thus completing by his action the words of the form. I sign you….(etc)] In the new rite, however, even though the Eastern Rite words are used, they are are not completed by the action of imposition of hands, as in the Eastern Rite.

Conclusion: The validity of the Confirmation is in doubt on the basis of apparent defect of form…

Most theologians traditionally regard the imposition of hands and the signing and anointing of the forehead as the proximate matter of Confirmation, and the chrism of olive oil and balm consecrated by the bishop as the remote matter. In Pope Paul VI’s New Rite of Confirmation, the imposition of hands has been abolished, and other vegetable oils may replace olive oil, and any spice may be used instead of balm.

Conclusion: The validity of the Confirmation is in doubt on the basis of apparent defect of both proximate and remote matter.

As I write in another posting, the Sacraments most certainly are not the property of the Pope. They were given by Christ, and the Church has never, never, felt free to tamper with their Matter or Form. For example (to mention another two Sacraments): The Church does not consider she has the right to (i) use cake or grape juice in ‘confecting’ the Blessed Eucharist; (ii) ordain women.

Not because of any abstruse argumentation, but simply because Our Lord did not ordain it so, and we have no power or authority to innovate.

The Pope is the guardian and custodian of the Faith. It is not his to arbitarily tamper with.

In the New Testament, the imposition of hands was always present in Confirmation (cf. Acts 8:17, Acts 19:6). But there is no imposition of hands in the New Rite of Confirmation. It has been abolished. This alone renders Paul VI’s New Rite of Confirmation highly doubtful.

Conclusion: All the changes considered, the validity of the new Confirmation is highly doubtful.
That is Point 1.
Point 2: The Old Rite (which embraces the Sacraments) was never abrogated.
Point 3: S. Thomas Aquinas writes: “In case of doubt, follow the safer course”.
Therefore: The Faithful are prudent to adhere to the immemorial Rite of Confirmation (Latin or Byzantine, remembering that it is forbidden to adopt a different Rite from that into which one was born)…

Problem: But the world’s Bishop’s refuse to make this available to the Faithful.

Hence, by the very definition of Emergency, such a state exists in the present Church.

The SSPX, alone amongst all prelates (until very recently) offer the Traditional, immemorial, and certain Rite of Confirmation.

Conclusion: {Need I go on?}

 

[numealinesimpet]

The Baseball Confirmation of Phoenix, Arizona, 1998

The previous post dealt with the problems of the New Rite of Confirmation, even under ‘ideal’ conditions.

But, as most Catholics know, “You ain’t seen nothin yet” … …

The following true account is “compiled from various sources”. Let the reader be aware that some of these sources were Diocesan magazines up and down the USA, who reported the incident** with approval.**

In June 1998 the bishop in Phoenix, Arizona had all of that year’s candidates for confirmation come to the new baseball stadium to all be confirmed on the same day. He gave every priest in the diocese faculties to confirm during the “service.” He invited all attendees (including a special invitation to non-Catholics) to come to the ballpark wearing red shirts for the Holy Spirit. They then sang some stupid song to the Holy Spirit to the tune of “Take me out to the Ballpark,” an American folksong sung by Barney the dinosaur to name one advocate of the song. During the Mass, many people were seen eating hot dogs and popcorn. The candidates for confirmation poured out of the bleacher seats to any priest anywhere and were confirmed. How could anyone know who was eligible for confirmation or to receive the Eucharist?

After the “event,” two boxes arrived at the rectory of a local church to a truly devout priest. A delivery man plopped the boxes on the counter and said, “These are for you. They are the consecrated hosts that weren’t used at the ballpark.” He opened the boxes and to his horror he found two large food service containers, generally used to hold about 10 gallons of ice cream, filled with consecrated hosts. The second box didn’t even have these. It was lined with butcher paper and thousands of consecrated hosts were tossed into the box. He immediately took the boxes to the sacristy and started to reserve the Blessed Sacrament in every ciborium and chalice he could find. He then scoured each container and box for Crumbs to consume. He counted 5000 hosts.

It continues. The associate pastor decided that it wouldn’t be “proper” to store the hosts for too long, yet the parish could never distribute 5000. What to do? Without telling my priest friend, he began to fill the ciboriums that were being used in the offertory procession of the succeeding Novus Ordo Masses with already consecrated hosts. So during the next Mass the priest was consecrating previously consecrated hosts!

How did this bishop over-consecrate 5000 hosts? Or was it more? Did another parish receive a similar shipment? Who can imagine a more blatant or public statement that this bishop and whoever is under him does not believe in the Real Presence. He may speak the orthodox line when his back is to the wall, but in practice he preaches heresy. Catholics in his diocese are released from any obligation to obey him as these are most certainly, as canon law demands, times of crisis.

The faithful of Arizona have two choices in 1998. They can take their child to the SSPX chapel where he will be confirmed according to the rites of the Catholic Church, specifically and infallibly ‘canonised’ at the Council of Trent and by Pope s. Pius V in perpetuity.

Or they can take them to the Ballpark.