Universal Indult

[Iohannes]

I never said the Traditional Latin Mass should be imposed upon the Eastern Rites, and yes it is the Mass of all Ages because it is bascially the oldest liturgy around.

Look here I am not saying the Novus Ordo is invalid.

What do you mean less on the schismatic side? Lumen gentlement accepts the validly of the Novus Ordo.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

and yes it is the Mass of all Ages because it is bascially the oldest liturgy around

You’ve been reading too much Michael Davies. Read some real liturgical scholars.

Yes, the Roman Canon is pretty old, older than those use by most Eastern liturgies. (Not older than the Liturgy of Saint James, though, which is still used among some Eastern Christians.)

And besides, all Masses approved by the Church are “for all ages,” and are of equal worth and dignity.

What do you mean less on the schismatic side? Lumen gentlement accepts the validly of the Novus Ordo.

So do many schismatics.

The site’s materials imply that the Novus Ordo is a radical break from tradition, and that Russia has not yet been consecrated to the Immaculate Heart.

 

[Iohannes]

Michael Daives is a good author, and I know of non-traditionalist who hold that opinion too.

Of course the Novus Ordo is a radical break from Tradition, hence the word radical, some people may think it is organic(which I believe it is not), but it is a radical change from the 1965 Missal.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Michael Daives is a good author, and I know of non-traditionalist who hold that opinion too.

Davies is an excellent, excellent writer, and a good historian. But liturgical scholarship isn’t his specialty. Its foolish to think, as he seems to, that the Tridentine Mass, in all its entirety, goes back 1500 years. This may be the case with the Canon, but not the rest.

Of course the Novus Ordo is a radical break from Tradition, hence the word radical, some people may think it is organic(which I believe it is not), but it is a radical change from the 1965 Missal.

That’s your opinion.

Pope Paul VI thought otherwise.

 

[Iohannes]

DominvsVobiscvm:

Davies is an excellent, excellent writer, and a good historian. But liturgical scholarship isn’t his specialty. Its foolish to think, as he seems to, that the Tridentine Mass, in all its entirety, goes back 1500 years. This may be the case with the Canon, but not the rest.

That’s your opinion.

Pope Paul VI thought otherwise.

Uhh, no, is not an opinion that the Novus Ordo is a radical departure from the Traditional Latin Mass.

Novus Ordo Missae=“New Order of the Mass”

I suggest you read the “Ottavani Intervention” by Cardinal Ottaviani

New additions to the Novus Ordo :

-Standing for Communion
-Intercession prayers which are Byzantine
-various new penitential rites
-Acclamiation in the Canons
-changing of the consecration prayer

• the three 3 extra Eucharistic prayers

Some other major changes
-Kyrie
-Offertory
-Confiteor
-(Domine non sum dignus) said once
-removal of the prayers at the foot of the Altar
-adding a second reading
-Lavabo
-Dramatic reduction in priests gestures
-restructuring of the Calender(another hint that is a radical depature from tradition)

We should take this discussion to another thread.

 

[Tboy4Christ]

DominvsVobiscvm:

You’ve been reading too much Michael Davies. Read some real liturgical scholars.

Dom,
Let’s be civil. I realize you are an old pro in these forums (who else could have over 300 posts in a little over a week!), but c’mon…

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Uhh, no, is not an opinion that the Novus Ordo is a radical departure from the Traditional Latin Mass.

Tell that to Pope Paul VI:

1. You will see for yourselves that they [the changes] consist of many new directions for celebrating the rites. Especially at the beginning, these will call for a certain amount of attention and care. Personal devotion and community sense will make it easy and pleasant to observe these new rules. But keep this clearly in mind: Nothing has been changed of the substance of our traditional Mass. Perhaps some may allow themselves to be carried away by the impression made by some particular ceremony or additional rubric, and thus think that they conceal some alteration or diminution of truths which were acquired by the Catholic faith for ever, and are sanctioned by it. They might come to believe that the equation between the law of prayer, lex orandi and the law of faith, lex credendi, is compromised as a result.

1. It is not so. Absolutely not. Above all, because the rite and the relative rubric are not in themselves a dogmatic definition. Their theological qualification may vary in different degrees according to the liturgical context to which they refer. They are gestures and terms relating to a religious action–experienced and living–of an indescribable mystery of divine presence, not always expressed in a universal way. Only theological criticism can analyze this action and express it in logically satisfying doctrinal formulas. The Mass of the new rite is and remains the same Mass we have always had. If anything, its sameness has been brought out more clearly in some respects.

. . .

1. So do not let us talk about “the new Mass.” Let us rather speak of the “new epoch” in the Church’s life.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Tboy4Christ:

Dom,
Let’s be civil. I realize you are an old pro in these forums (who else could have over 300 posts in a little over a week!), but c’mon…

LOL!

Maybe you’re right . . .

Sorry if I came across as rude.

 

[Sparky]

I believe the universal indult was offered to SSPX and they turned it down. Strange, since they’d essentially be their own universal diocese and be in union with Rome. I guess they like being divided from the true church. In that sense they’re acting like Protestants.
–Ann

 

[Tboy4Christ]

Sparky:

I believe the universal indult was offered to SSPX and they turned it down. Strange, since they’d essentially be their own universal diocese and be in union with Rome. I guess they like being divided from the true church. In that sense they’re acting like Protestants.
–Ann

That’s harsh. I’m sure they don’t “like” it ALL… Not defending their stance, but we shouldn’t snap to judgements like that…

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

I think Sparky has a very valid point.

At the root of all heresy/schism (Circumciser, Gnostic, Montanist, Sabellianist, Arian, Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian, Nestorian, Monophysite, Iconoclast, Orthodox, Catharist, Protestant, Jansenist, Modernist, Levebvrist, etc.) is one thing: private interpretation, over and against the guidance of the Magisterium.

 

[Dr.Colossus]

That’s precisely it. Schismatic groups such as the SSPX do not have the “assent of mind and will” for the Magisterium, so no matter how many concessions are made, they will continue to protest, and therefore remain at heart Protestant.

 

[TLM_Altar_Boy]

Sparky:

I believe the universal indult was offered to SSPX and they turned it down. Strange, since they’d essentially be their own universal diocese and be in union with Rome. I guess they like being divided from the true church. In that sense they’re acting like Protestants.

I heard the same thing. According to a letter and reply posted on the SSPX website, Cardinal Hoyos, President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, wrote:

It is certain that in the statutes of your reinsertion, you would be offered every guaranty that the Society’s members, and all those who have a special attraction to this noble liturgical tradition, could celebrate it freely in your churches and places of worship.

But that wasn’t good enough for the SSPX. :nope: Evidently, the issue was that they would occasionally need to celebrate Mass–or even just worship at Mass–according to the Novus Ordo (ordination Masses, etc.). I agree, though, that the SSPX is putting forth no effort whatsoever to meet Rome halfway. For a group that claims to uphold the True Catholic Faith*****, they seem to have lots of problems compromising with Rome to end a schism, let alone acknowledging and submitting to the authority of the Pope.

While I agree that the the members of the SSPX are, in a sense, Protestant, I feel they are even more like “cafeteria Catholics”. For example, they are very similar to those who practice birth control. Both make themselves their own pope; both accept only those teachings of the Church that give them that warm, fuzzy feeling inside; and both obstinately persist in grave sin.

***** The term “True Catholic Faith” is a registered trademark of the Society of Saint Pius X and may only be used when referring to schismatic societies that recognize the Supreme Pontiff in name only. All rights reserved. :banghead:

 

[Dr.Colossus]

While I agree that the the members of the SSPX are, in a sense, Protestant, I feel they are even more like “cafeteria Catholics”.

So what’s the difference? Don’t like Birth Control? Meh, no big deal, throw it out! Don’t like the New Mass? It’s gone! Don’t like celibate priesthood, transubstantiation, salvation by works, Catholic Tradition? Luther didn’t. Look where it led.

When you look at it, cafeteria katholicism is the same road as Protestantism, it just might be more of the on-ramp than the highway.

 

[TLM_Altar_Boy]

Dr. Colossus:

When you look at it, cafeteria katholicism is the same road as Protestantism, it just might be more of the on-ramp than the highway.

True, but the difference is that the cafeteria Catholics and the SSPX compound their sin by bearing false witness; their claim of being Catholic implies that they are in communion with Rome and assent to the teachings of Mother Church. Almost all Protestants, on the other hand, freely admit–or for some, strenuously wave their arms and point to the fact–that they are not Catholic.

 

[jremaley]

It’s actually more deeply rooted then that. SSPX thinks they are in union with Rome and have never left the Church. They get extremely upset being referred to as protestant. (Trust me I know) From their point of view it is the Church that is protestant (or “Protestantized” by Vatican II) not them.

There major stance is that Rome, Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae etc have abandoned tradition and are all practicing the Catholic faith in error. They honestly feel that they are upholding the faith and tradition of the “True Church” until Rome comes back into compliance.

They were offered things like a private prelature status like Opus Dei but that will not solve the problem in the Church as they see it. The Church needs to return to its “Tradition” and traditional liturgy, doctine etc. Nothing else will suffice.

 

[TLM_Altar_Boy]

jremaley:

This is all certainly true, and I agree with everything you said. Admittedly, I have oversimplified the situation between the Vatican and the SSPX. For this, I apologize. However, I still have to donate two more cents. :twocents:

No matter what the SSPX claims, the bishops and priests of this society have been excommunicated by Rome, suspended a divinis, and thus celebrate the sacraments illicitly. In addition, while they may take offense at being called Protestants, the posters here are right to recognize that the two groups share one big similarity: both, through their actions, deny the authority of the bishop of Rome.

Bishop Fellay, along with the other bishops, priests, and laymen who adhere to this schism, should take to heart both Matthew 16:18 and the words of St. Augustine: Roma locutus est, causa finita est.

I pray with all my heart to the Most Sacred Heart that all of our separated brethren throughout the world may be united with Mother Church.

 

[Iohannes]

I believe if Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was alive today, he would try and reconcile. Fr. Augliner(sp?) wanted to reconcile with Rome, but the SSPX threw him out despite the fact he was one of the original founders of it. Calling them protestant is not kind or charitable because they are not heretics, they are at worst schismatics and at best irregular status. Although, what they are doing is wrong, you have to at least sympathize with them a little bit on the situation of the Liturgy. Too bad the SSPX left, they could of been real useful against the modernism within the Church.

 

[TLM_Altar_Boy]

Iohannes:

I believe if Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was alive today, he would try and reconcile. Fr. Augliner(sp?) wanted to reconcile with Rome, but the SSPX threw him out despite the fact he was one of the original founders of it. Calling them protestant is not kind or charitable because they are not heretics, they are at worst schismatics and at best irregular status. Although, what they are doing is wrong, you have to at least sympathize with them a little bit on the situation of the Liturgy. Too bad the SSPX left, they could of been real useful against the modernism within the Church.

First off, if it looked like I said the members of the SSPX were Protestant, I apologize. I meant to say that, similar to Protestants, they refused to submit to the Pope or the Magisterium. I believe Dr. Colossus and Sparky were saying essentially the same thing, though I don’t mean to put words in their mouths. I apologize if what I said did not come across as kind, but I can assure you it was charitable. As adhering to schism incurs latæ *sententiæ *excommunication and worshipping at an illicit Mass is grave matter, I worry about the souls of the priests in the SSPX and the laymen who frequent their Masses.

When you state that members of the SSPX have “at best irregular status”, I feel obliged to state that without a doubt the bishops, and almost certainly the priests as well, have been excommunicated by the Holy Father in Ecclesia Dei. For more on the current status of the Society, see the following documents in EWTN’s vast database: Ecclesia Dei, Status of the Society of St. Pius X, and Status of the Society of St. Pius X Masses.

I have thought long and hard many times about whether or not I sympathize with the members of the society. On one level, I do. I am very blessed that Msgr. McInerny, the pastor of my parish, has been granted an indult by our bishop to celebrate the Mass according to the Missal of 1962. There are many liturgical abuses in some Novus Ordo parishes (though hopefully Redemptionis Sacramentum will fix that! ), but I believe that what the SSPX is doing is far worse than the vast majority of these abuses. When I read the writings of SSPX priests or visit the infamous Novus Ordo Watch ( ), I am often amazed by the pure and venomous hatred that seems to fill the hearts of many of these people toward the Novus Ordo Missae, toward the Supreme Pontiff, and toward us po’ “Novus Ordo Catholics”. As it is written, :bible1: by their fruits you shall know them. The only fruits of the SSPX I have seen so far are hatred and schism.

Nevertheless, I might still sympathize with the members of the society even a little bit, but I don’t. Why not? Perhaps the primary reason is that I have *never *seen any real move, on behalf of the society itself, to reconcile itself with Holy MotherChurch. As you mention, there are individual priests who have made an effort and individual priests who have returned to the flock and joined the FSSP. The Society of St. Pius X pays only lip service to the pope and refuses to rejoin the Church until She returns to pre-Vatican II ways. The stubbornness of the society imperils countless souls.

I agree, though, that it is too bad they left. Their staying indeed would have had a practical purpose. Most SSPX priests (except for that one little problem on authority) are far more orthodox than many priests I have encountered and undeniably would have been valiant warriors in the daily battle against Modernism. But even more than the help they would be to us and Mother Church, think of the help they would be to themselves if they were visibly within the fold and not adhering to schism!

Every time I write a message I promise myself that “This one will be short!”, but it never is. Every time I write a message I promise myself that “This one will convince everyone and offend no one!”, but I know it won’t. However, this is the truth of the Society: the Society of St. Pius X, apparently in good faith, is leading otherwise pious Catholics astray. How can I support any group doing this?

 

[jremaley]

Ryan

There is no doubt that SSPX is in totality excommunicated from the Church including the laity that have “formal adherence” to this schism. Ecclesia Dei makes that very clear.

I have several family members involved in SSPX and have been debating the issues with them for several years now. Some times I get a little carried away in posting on them but I did not want to leave any impression that I supported their position, I just feel I understand it pretty well.

Some of the discussion in this thread was leaning towards SSPX reluctance in coming back to the Church. I just wanted to clarify that their position goes far beyond the TLM and from their point of view the Church needs to return to them.

Yes in a lot of respects there are protestant and certainly “posters here are right to recognize” the similarities. I guess I wanted to point out the major difference from a typical Protestant. Protestants admittedly left the Church and deny the authority of Rome but SSPX believes the Church left them and the authority of Rome is being used in error.

I too pray that they will and all others will “be united with Mother Church”.