Three points on the recent SSPX ordinations [Peters]

[numealinesimpet]

Because that was not the original post or topic.

Actually, I think you’ve got me there. It was about the ordinations. I’d forgotten that.

You can do what you want. I do not moderate here. However, I personally like to stick to the topic.

Oh no you didn’t. You quoted extraneous matter from a sedevac website (which, you will notice, I certainly did not quote verbatim) as a way of avoiding the facing of the issues I raised. I used that website because, in fact, the mainstream Church has never, to my knowledge, explained why it changed the Rite of Confirmation in the first place. If you would like to correct this impression, please provide the url.

Yet in another way it is not off topic, because of those who (erroneously) start from the postiion that the SSPX is in the wrong, and has no case for its position. I am presenting the evidence why their primary position is justified. I am happy to discuss it.

 

[numealinesimpet]

There are three separate issues here. Let’s look at them briefly.

1. The consecrated hosts is a disturbing point. I can understand consecrating more hosts than you need. This happens at many such masses. I saw it happen when Pope Benedict celebrated mass in Sydney. There must have been almost 100 ciboriums with consecrated hosts after communion. However, I assume and have not heard differently, that there was a plan to distribute them to parishes to be properly used. In other words, they did not appear at someone’s door. I hope that someone looked into this. There should have been a committee that was responsible for seeing to the leftover consecrated hosts. That’s one of the duties of the planning committe. Obviously, someone dropped the ball, BIG TIME. But that does not make the bishop any more responsible than it would make the Pope responsible if it had happened at World Youth Day. That’s why you have liturgical committees and liturgical teams, to avoid this kind of fiasco.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

That argument would not stand up in the marketplace, nor in a parliamentary democracy. ‘The children in this world are wiser in their own generation than the children of light’.
If a massive blunder (or sabotage) is carried out, somebody carries the can. If the underlings misbehave and are not disciplined, then their superior is required to resign. This is elementary.

The abuse of consecrated hosts has occurred at every single one of these massive open-air Masses. Anybody who does not know this: God help your innocence. Yet The Boss persisted to the very end in continuing with them.

I am not the pope, so I cannot say why he did not simply hold open-air prayer meetings without exposing the Blessed Sacrament to being trampled into the dirt. I know personally some who came 99% close to the Sedevac heresy as a direct result of having witnessed these things at a Papal Mass.

 

[PaulinVA]

That’s not a very effective argument, Paul. For many men–not all men, but for many–serving at the Altar is the first taste and first step, the planting of the seed, so to speak, of a Vocation.

I guess we could talk about how one discerns one’s vocation. I was about to say that being on the altar as a server doesn’t lead a boy to say, “Hey, I like being on the altar, this is sweet.”, but, frankly, I must admit that same reaction to a taste of my vocation. (Hey, girls are fun to be around. Sweet")

I think I read somewhere that only 50% of priests were altar servers.

But we do know the effect of rolling the NO out to the general Church. Sadly, we do.

The last forty years have not been good for the Church. Can you blame the NO? I actually put most of the blame on the clergy. They are the ones responsible for the lack of reverence and bad advice in confession (extra points for linking posts) and generally leading us down the path to perdition. Does the NO itself have a role in that? Probably, but I think the general lack of enculturation (don’t need to learn latin, our language, if you don’t need it for Mass) has more to do with that.

What a mess ™

 

[numealinesimpet]

Thanks for all who offered thoughts on this, especially you, Br. JR. I have to say I always appreciate your posts and the wisdom therein.

I had a feeling that the Rite had not changed such that the sacramental grace was no longer conferred upon the recipient. As one poster quoted St. Thomas Aquinas: when in doubt, go for the safer course. For me, that’s sticking to the Holy Mother Church and what has come from her approved by the Holy Father.

Chris

“Normally”, that would be manifestly the safest course. The problem with following it as the only, or the over-riding, criterion in the present age is: it does not protect us from the likes of the ‘Baseball Confirmation’. That is the whole nub of the issue. What principle can we follow, in determining the Safest course?

The Catholic principle down the ages has always been – “If there is grave doubt, do what we have always done in the past.” An innovation might be harmful or invalid. A previous universal practice cannot have been invalid.

Was the Baseball Confirmation – to instance only one of the outrageous abuses of the past decades – sanctioned by the Holy Father? If we think it was not, what evidence can be produced to support this?

Personally, I would put on record that I do not see that the New Rite of Confirmation is proven to be invalid. But there is legitimate doubt. Therefore I have chosen the traditional Rite for my children. To set aside the injunction of the bishop, and to avail of the certainty of the immemorial Rite, is the lesser of two evils. Neither I nor the SSPX chose this situation.

 

[rkrispies]

“Normally”, that would be manifestly the safest course. The problem with following it as the only, or the over-riding, criterion in the present age is: it does not protect us from the likes of the ‘Baseball Confirmation’. That is the whole nub of the issue. What principle can we follow, in determining the Safest course?

The Catholic principle down the ages has always been – “If there is grave doubt, do what we have always done in the past.” An innovation might be harmful or invalid. A previous universal practice cannot have been invalid.

Was the Baseball Confirmation – to instance only one of the outrageous abuses of the past decades – sanctioned by the Holy Father? If we think it was not, what evidence can be produced to support this?

Personally, I would put on record that I do not see that the New Rite of Confirmation is proven to be invalid. But there is legitimate doubt. Therefore I have chosen the traditional Rite for my children. To set aside the injunction of the bishop, and to avail of the certainty of the immemorial Rite, is the lesser of two evils. Neither I nor the SSPX chose this situation.

Ah, but we were not discussing the Baseball Confirmation. I think we would both agree that someone needs a slap upside the head for that one. We were discussing the rubrics for the rite. We need to be also conscious of this one fact: Parents (and the confirmation candidates themselves) were not required to receive the sacrament at the baseball stadium. They could have waited. We always have that option. There is no canon saying that people must be confirmed at age ___ (14 when I got it, 16 in my current diocese, fill in whatever age is appropriate). People have the option not to participate in what is quite possibly one of the worst sacramental celebrations I have heard of.

That aside, the rubrics as they are promulgated by the Holy See are valid. To follow them is a safe course. Otherwise, the forces of evil would have scored a major victory over the Church, which Christ promises will not happen. So I will again stick with the Holy Mother Church.

Chris

 

[pnewton]

pnewton,
So it might be more effective to address the substance of n’s posts rather than dismiss the sources.

At the end of the day the hope is that the sedes renounce their ridiculous opinion.

I did, if you will check back and posted two logical fallacies, an assumed premise and false authority. My reason for posting the link to the site was a concern for plagurism, namely, a source being copied extensively verbatum without reference.

Yes, I too get drawn into going off topic. However, I try to get back when I realize it and quit chasing rabbits. That is why I said I* like* to stick to the topic instead that I stick to the topic. I

 

[JReducation]

That argument would not stand up in the marketplace, nor in a parliamentary democracy. ‘The children in this world are wiser in their own generation than the children of light’.
If a massive blunder (or sabotage) is carried out, somebody carries the can. If the underlings misbehave and are not disciplined, then their superior is required to resign. This is elementary.

The abuse of consecrated hosts has occurred at every single one of these massive open-air Masses. Anybody who does not know this: God help your innocence. Yet The Boss persisted to the very end in continuing with them.

I am not the pope, so I cannot say why he did not simply hold open-air prayer meetings without exposing the Blessed Sacrament to being trampled into the dirt. I know personally some who came 99% close to the Sedevac heresy as a direct result of having witnessed these things at a Papal Mass.

All of the popes since Paul VI have liked the open air masses and have asked that they be planned. Paul VI began the tradition and it was continued by John Paul II and now Benedict XVI. As I said above, the Holy Father consecrates thousands of hosts at his masses and they are not all used. In NY they asked the parishes to bring consecrated hosts to the mass from the parishes. They were stored in tabernacles of repose until they were needed. The remaining hosts werre taken back to their parishes.

Each committee has its own plans. I don’t know how they did it in Sydney. But I did see the 100 or so ciboriums returning to the make-shift sacristy with consecrated hosts.

The issue is proper planning. I would not blame the Pope or the bishop if someone dropped the ball. It makes no sense to blame them. The main celebrant is not the liturgical planner.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[I_Believe]

You have to develop strategies that will work with today’s Catholics who are steeped in today’s Church and today’s culture.

Well, carry on then. You ask for strategies, and then pooh pooh them when they are offered.

You have a weed growing and the leaves are ugly. Clipping the leaves off and trying different fertilizer in hopes of producing pretty leaves probably won’t work.

I’d rather pull the weed out of the ground and plant a flower.

But, again, carry on.

At any rate, I’m not going to spend the summer with these goofy threads. I’m going to wait and see what happens with the talks between Rome and the SSPX.

God Bless, have a good summer.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Ah, but we were not discussing the Baseball Confirmation. I think we would both agree that someone needs a slap upside the head for that one. We were discussing the rubrics for the rite.

True. It is a closely related, but different, issue.

We need to be also conscious of this one fact: Parents (and the confirmation candidates themselves) were not required to receive the sacrament at the baseball stadium. They could have waited. We always have that option. There is no canon saying that people must be confirmed at age ___ (14 when I got it, 16 in my current diocese, fill in whatever age is appropriate). People have the option not to participate in what is quite possibly one of the worst sacramental celebrations I have heard of.

The problem is, as it says in the psalm, * ‘We have no word from God, neither have we a prophet: we have no-one to tell us how long it will last’.*

My original correspondent spent thousands shopping around for places to take their children to the Sacraments.

That aside, the rubrics as they are promulgated by the Holy See are valid. To follow them is a safe course. Otherwise, the forces of evil would have scored a major victory over the Church, which Christ promises will not happen.

Yes, I do agree there. It is also why I will not accept that the Novus Ordo Mass, or the other Sacraments, celebrated in Latin or a faithful translation according to the rubrics, could be invalid. The problem is more subtle than that. The Rite of Ordination, for example, was in the trad form so explicit that it could not be repeated by anybody without being valid. The new Rite, it can be argued, is valid or not depending on the internal disposition of the Ordinary. The same can certainly be said of the NO Mass, especially in the 2nd Eucharistic Prayer. This whole present confusion and decline in the Church is nothing so simplistic as heretical popes and invalid Sacraments – although one can only pray that some of the more outrageous ‘celebrations’ are invalid, so that Our Lord is not abused in His Sacraments.

So I will again stick with the Holy Mother Church.

For many years I avoided all contact with the SSPX - which I had only heard about via distorted newspaper reports. If I thought they really were outside the church I would certainly have nothing to do with them. If I really had no other recourse, and the local diocesan confirmation was ‘not too bad’, then I would have put up with it. But it became clear to me that the whole SSPX situation was less clear-cut than met the eye. It is a valid option within the church, and therefore I take it. “Other things being equal”, the trad Rite scores hands down. There is, in the simplified wording of the NO confirmation, a legitimate cause for doubt, however. It does make a difference that the immemorial Rite was never abrogated. That means that the Holy Spirit did leave a door open. I would, in the last analysis accept it on the grounds that we laypeople have neither the expertise nor the authority to make these judgments. But the mere fact that we are faced with these dilemmas tells us that we are in a mess. I believe that the SSPX position will be fully vindicated in time. The problem is, we must make decisions now that will affect our grandchildren. We made the decision to adopt the trad way, and shielded our children from the din of battle until they were old enough to cope with it, bit by bit. the Local Ordinary refused to implement the Holy Father’s clearly-expressed will in Ecclesia Dei. It was the realisation that he knew he would get away with this, that finally convinced me that the SSPX had the true picture.

 

[maurin]

The last forty years have not been good for the Church. Can you blame the NO? I actually put most of the blame on the clergy. They are the ones responsible for the lack of reverence and bad advice in confession (extra points for linking posts) and generally leading us down the path to perdition. Does the NO itself have a role in that? Probably, but I think the general lack of enculturation (don’t need to learn latin, our language, if you don’t need it for Mass) has more to do with that.

What a mess ™

Paul, of course the NO has a role in that–all of that. The changes in teaching that lead to ecumania, the rendered distinction between the Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ in the change of the definition of the Church, the diluting of Eucharistic Theology in the paring down of the Canon which is similar to the paring down by Cranmer 500 years ago…Of course the NO has a role in all of that. The Clergy is only taking the illogical to the “logical” ends.

I agree with I Believe. Pull the weed out by its root and plant the flower we already possess.

 

[maurin]

I did, if you will check back and posted two logical fallacies, an assumed premise and false authority. My reason for posting the link to the site was a concern for plagurism, namely, a source being copied extensively verbatum without reference.

fair enough, p. But so what if n “plagiarized” his/her posts? There is still the substance of the arguments that need to be addressed.

I don’t know if n leans towards the s-v word or not (do you, n?), but even if the source were s-v the substance ought to be addressed.

I realize you have done that, sorry to have “butted it.” (but hey, it’s me, maurin, your friendly neighborhood bull-in-the-china-shop )

 

[pnewton]

It is also why I will not accept that the Novus Ordo Mass, or the other Sacraments, celebrated in Latin or a faithful translation according to the rubrics, could be invalid. … It is a valid option within the church, and therefore I take it. “Other things being equal”, the trad Rite scores hands down.

Except all things are not equal. Regardless of the standing of the SSPX within the Church (which we can argue to doomsday) it is not quite right, regular, if you will. This makes it in an inferior state of communion (again, how much so depends on your opinion) than one’s geographical, or any other diocesan parish.

As to your continuing questioning of the Sacraments, it should be noted that the SSPX leadership does not question the validity of the Mass. Indeed, the Vatican has never backed down on the stance that the SSPX will not be in regular communion with the Holy Catholic Church unless they acknowledge the validity of the Mass. This alone should give one pause on how serious an offense it is to defy the Church on this matter.

Your reasons for attending an SSPX are your own and no one should judge you. However, I would hate for one to follow you in an error that the Catholic Church deems so critical to communion. Fortunately, since the SSPX does not deny the validity of the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, there is hope that these priests, like the anecdote JREducation gave earlier will one day be in regular communion.

 

[pnewton]

fair enough, p. But so what if n “plagiarized” his/her posts? There is still the substance of the arguments that need to be addressed.

Let me clarify quickly that I do not think the posts were palagurized with any malcontent. I just know that the reason the mods watch this stuff so tightly is to not interfere with copyright infringement. I thought the connection needed to be made so it would serve as a footnote and keep CAF nice and legal. So I posted the link and quoted it to show it was the same.

Yes, I also was wondering if I was dealing with what you cleverly called an s-v. On this note I totally accept anyone’s self-declaration. Numealinesimpet is totally correct that the source does not affect the argument.

 

[maurin]

Let me clarify quickly that I do not think the posts were palagurized with any malcontent. I just know that the reason the mods watch this stuff so tightly is to not interfere with copyright infringement. I thought the connection needed to be made so it would serve as a footnote and keep CAF nice and legal. So I posted the link and quoted it to show it was the same.

Yes, I also was wondering if I was dealing with what you cleverly called an s-v. On this note I totally accept anyone’s self-declaration. Numealinesimpet is totally correct that the source does not affect the argument.

I hope numealinesimpet does not mind me saying, that no, he/she is NOT an s-v.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Except all things are not equal. Regardless of the standing of the SSPX within the Church (which we can argue to doomsday) it is not quite right, regular, if you will. This makes it in an inferior state of communion (again, how much so depends on your opinion) than one’s geographical, or any other diocesan parish.

It is not a matter of opinion, but an objective fact about which, however, there is a difference of opinion expressed. The SSPX have had the book thrown at them, but every one of the sanctions has been illegal and therefore invalid, according to the church’s own laws. Mercifully, this is now being rectified. There is no valid reason for shunning them.

As to your continuing questioning of the Sacraments, it should be noted that the SSPX leadership does not question the validity of the Mass. Indeed, the Vatican has never backed down on the stance that the SSPX will not be in regular communion with the Holy Catholic Church unless they acknowledge the validity of the Mass.

Not quite right. A particular Vatican official might have made that claim, but it was pure politicking, since as you remark yourself, the SSPX do not pronounce on the validity – indeed Mgr Lefebvre expelled seminarians who did so.

This alone should give one pause on how serious an offense it is to defy the Church on this matter.

Just as well they don’t & never have, in that case.

Your reasons for attending an SSPX are your own and no one should judge you. However, I would hate for one to follow you in an error that the Catholic Church deems so critical to communion.

See above.

Fortunately, since the SSPX does not deny the validity of the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, there is hope that these priests, like the anecdote JREducation gave earlier will one day be in regular communion.

As Bp Fellay said at a recent Conference (Nov 2007, Athlone, Ireland): We have now reached a very critical point in the course of events. The Novus Ordo Bishops, those who lived through Vatican II, are getting old. For them Vatican II was their baby. They cannot entertain the idea that it was all a huge mistake. The younger bishops are more unformed in the Faith, but they do not have this attachment to Vatican II.

Therefore the duration and the details of this crisis are not our concern. Our concern is that the church get back on its tracks.

The Vatican insists that it is we who are the problem.

I said recently to Cdl Castrillon Hoyos: “Please forget about the SSPX and deal with your own problems! When you have done that, you will discover that the SSPX is no longer a problem!

We are a thermometer of the state of the Church. A doctor ought not to get upset at his own thermometer! Cure the sickness and the thermometer will go down by itself!

 

[numealinesimpet]

Let me clarify quickly that I do not think the posts were palagurized with any malcontent. I just know that the reason the mods watch this stuff so tightly is to not interfere with copyright infringement. I thought the connection needed to be made so it would serve as a footnote and keep CAF nice and legal. So I posted the link and quoted it to show it was the same.

Yes, I also was wondering if I was dealing with what you cleverly called an s-v. On this note I totally accept anyone’s self-declaration. Numealinesimpet is totally correct that the source does not affect the argument.

OK, lads, I’m happy to clarify a couple of things: I’m a ‘he’; I have spent years trying to convince certain s-v’s of my acquaintance of the errors of their ways; I did not plagarise, I used the factual info & drew different conclusions from some of what was on the original website. Look more closely (tho’ it’s getting a stale issue by now) & you can verify that.

 

[rkrispies]

It is not a matter of opinion, but an objective fact about which, however, there is a difference of opinion expressed. The SSPX have had the book thrown at them, but every one of the sanctions has been illegal and therefore invalid, according to the church’s own laws. Mercifully, this is now being rectified. There is no valid reason for shunning them.

H H Benedict did not declare the excommunications were invalid or illegal, just that they were lifted as a “life-giving gesture”. The sanction was therefore legal (aka licit) and very much valid.

We are a thermometer of the state of the Church. A doctor ought not to get upset at his own thermometer! Cure the sickness and the thermometer will go down by itself!

There are innumerable orders and societies in the Church, including the FSSP. If more than just SSPX chose to follow the path they did, existing in an irregular status, I would say ok. But since they were apparently the only ones who did so without lapsing into heresy (aka s-v’s), perhaps they are not the best “thermometer of the state of the Church”.

Chris

 

[maurin]

It’s difficult to use the FSSP as an example to us SSPX’ers. We know they are holy men, and that they uphold Tradition. The issue we, or at least I, have with them is that their hands are tied. They made a pact with the modernists to keep their silence on the errors. It’s as if they are skilled surgeons of the highest acumen attending the parts of the body–but kept from attending to those parts infected by disease.

 

[rkrispies]

The problem is, as it says in the psalm, * ‘We have no word from God, neither have we a prophet: we have no-one to tell us how long it will last’.*

My original correspondent spent thousands shopping around for places to take their children to the Sacraments.

Yes, we may have to wait. Yes, that entails some personal sacrifice. However, it still remains fact that the person in question could have delayed until Easter Vigil perhaps? Or make calls to other dioceses (if permitted) to inquire. No need to spend thousands looking for just the right parish for everything. There are always other options besides a choice between Baseball confirmation and the appearance of schism.

Yes, I do agree there. It is also why I will not accept that the Novus Ordo Mass, or the other Sacraments, celebrated in Latin or a faithful translation according to the rubrics, could be invalid. The problem is more subtle than that. The Rite of Ordination, for example, was in the trad form so explicit that it could not be repeated by anybody without being valid. The new Rite, it can be argued, is valid or not depending on the internal disposition of the Ordinary. The same can certainly be said of the NO Mass, especially in the 2nd Eucharistic Prayer. This whole present confusion and decline in the Church is nothing so simplistic as heretical popes and invalid Sacraments – although one can only pray that some of the more outrageous ‘celebrations’ are invalid, so that Our Lord is not abused in His Sacraments.

You keep bringing up the Rite of Ordination. I looked at some of the stuff that is out there on the internet. It seems to me a small matter of semantics on many of the prayers, or an incomplete reading of the text of the rite. Regardless, the Holy See can change the prayers and approved the English translation of the rubrics for the rites of all the sacraments. Therefore, they are valid and licit, despite what some might say. I find the whole case for invalid mass and sacraments a bit weak at best.

For many years I avoided all contact with the SSPX - which I had only heard about via distorted newspaper reports. If I thought they really were outside the church I would certainly have nothing to do with them. If I really had no other recourse, and the local diocesan confirmation was ‘not too bad’, then I would have put up with it. But it became clear to me that the whole SSPX situation was less clear-cut than met the eye. It is a valid option within the church, and therefore I take it. “Other things being equal”, the trad Rite scores hands down. There is, in the simplified wording of the NO confirmation, a legitimate cause for doubt, however. It does make a difference that the immemorial Rite was never abrogated. That means that the Holy Spirit did leave a door open. I would, in the last analysis accept it on the grounds that we laypeople have neither the expertise nor the authority to make these judgments. But the mere fact that we are faced with these dilemmas tells us that we are in a mess. I believe that the SSPX position will be fully vindicated in time. The problem is, we must make decisions now that will affect our grandchildren. We made the decision to adopt the trad way, and shielded our children from the din of battle until they were old enough to cope with it, bit by bit. the Local Ordinary refused to implement the Holy Father’s clearly-expressed will in Ecclesia Dei. It was the realisation that he knew he would get away with this, that finally convinced me that the SSPX had the true picture.

Perhaps the Holy Spirit left a door open in the SSPX. Perhaps another spirit was at working fostering division in the Church. There are many cases in history of bishops and ordinaries ignoring what the pope has declared. Most of the time, these acts of disobedience did not lead to a major schism. In the case of SSPX, I think we still have to wait and see. Maybe they will be regularized, maybe not. Time will tell.

Chris

 

[rkrispies]

It’s difficult to use the FSSP as an example to us SSPX’ers. We know they are holy men, and that they uphold Tradition. The issue we, or at least I, have with them is that their hands are tied. They made a pact with the modernists to keep their silence on the errors. It’s as if they are skilled surgeons of the highest acumen attending the parts of the body–but kept from attending to those parts infected by disease.

Substitute, then, “Dominicans” or “Franciscans” or any other order (maybe not the Jesuits . . . I’m not going to go there). They made no “pact with modernists”. They stayed true to the pope and the Holy Church in a different way than SSPX.

Chris