What do you think?

[Crusading_Canuk]

Recently I’ve read an interesting article put out by the SSPX. A great deal of what it says makes sense and I was wondering what others thought of this; the Second Vatican Council was a valid pastoral council. A pastoral council is neither dogmatic nor infallible, merely a way of presenting the Faith. If a pastoral statement from a pastoral council were to contradict an infallible statement such as one from a dogmatic council, or dogmatic declaration by a pope (in this case the Syllabus of Errors) would we not as Catholics have to accept the infallible statement?
sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q6_vatican_ii.htm

In the same way, there are parts of the Mass of Paul VI that (seem to) contradict dogmatic declarations by the Council of Trent (history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct22.html), would this not mean that such changes would not be licit?
sspx.org/news/is_new_mass_legit/is_the_new_mass_legit.htm

Finally I put this up as a question not a statement or a chance to have a good ol row over it. I have seen similar threads go down hill, very, very quickly and have no intentions to argue.

 

[Melchior_1]

Essentially this is their way of saying the Ordinary Form isn’t licit, while saying that their Mass is licit. Meanwhile, Rome says the SSPX Masses are not licit.

My money is on Rome, thanks.

Somewhat related to this, I do wonder how the SSPX would feel if Pope Paul VI were to be elevated to Sainthood. And before anyone scoffs, completing V2, formulating a new Form, and Humane Vitae…if a couple of miracles happen he could have a solid case.

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

I imagine that they would be happy to know that he was a saint in Heaven. They (to my knowledge) don’t have issue with post VII saints.

But what about Canons regarding the Mass:

If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.

I mean this isn’t what the SSPX states, it was a dogmatic statement by the Council of Trent, which we must accept on pain of heresy (as is the nature of Dogmatic Councils).

 

[Melchior_1]

I imagine that they would be happy to know that he was a saint in Heaven. They (to my knowledge) don’t have issue with post VII saints.

But what about Canons regarding the Mass:

If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.

Canon. Like Canon Law? I’m under the impression that Canon Law can be changed (we’ve seen that happen often enough).

Again, all this shows is the SSPX toeing the line of schismaticism (yes, I just made up a word). The Pope wants them back. People like me (charismatics) want them back. We NEED them back. But we can’t have them back if they’re going to be passive-aggressive and essentially call every Ordinary Form Mass illicit. Which is made quite hypocritical when their current Masses are illicit.

Radical liberals, radical traditionalists. Both extremes threaten the Church and souls. And what’s at the root of both? Disobedience.

And will the be happy?: Some members of the SPPX don’t recognize Divine Mercy Sunday. Surely they’d have issues with the man who came up with the Mass of Paul VI becoming a Saint.

 

[Iotaunum]

I take the position of the SSPX and I attend Mass at an SSPX Chapel - however I took this position before I knew it was the position of the SSPX.

This is a hot topic and may end up being closed, as you feared, because some people cannot bite their tongue and end up breaking the forum rules which is a pity.

Regarding:

“If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.”

The SSPX do not use this in any way against the New Mass. What Trent condemns and anathematized people for, is saying that the pronunciation of the canon in a low tone, is to be condemned - now those who drew up the New Mass did not officially say this, but they do maintain that it is better to say it aloud. There is a difference, albeit slight. Likewise, regarding the “mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only” part, those who drew up the New Mass did not officially say this. It was issued in Latin and they decided where it was beneficial that certain parts could be said in the vernacular. Of course we know they felt that the entire rite was the “certain part” which was beneficial. I recommend reading the book “Reform of the Liturgy” by Archbishop Annibale Bugninni who headed the reform. It is very interesting and documents the views regarding issues such as these.

You know, if you asked an SSPX priest or Bishop how they would have responded to the traditional Mass being celebrated entirely in the vernacular and with the canon said out loud, I am sure you will find that they would have no problems with that - even though they may lament the benefits of Latin and the tradition of inaudible canon.

 

[MarkThompson]

Recently I’ve read an interesting article put out by the SSPX. A great deal of what it says makes sense and I was wondering what others thought of this; the Second Vatican Council was a valid pastoral council. A pastoral council is neither dogmatic nor infallible, merely a way of presenting the Faith. If a pastoral statement from a pastoral council were to contradict an infallible statement such as one from a dogmatic council, or dogmatic declaration by a pope (in this case the Syllabus of Errors) would we not as Catholics have to accept the infallible statement?
sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q6_vatican_ii.htm.

Remember, though, that, as Bl. John Henry Cardinal Newman remarked about the Syllabus of Errors:
The Syllabus is not an official act, because it is not signed, for instance, with “Datum Romae, Pius P. P. IX.,” or “sub annulo Piscatoris,” or in some other way; it is not a personal, for he does not address his “Venerabiles Fratres,” or “Dilecto Filio,” or speak as “Pius Episcopus;” it is not an immediate, for it comes to the Bishops only through the Cardinal Minister of State. . . .

[T]he Syllabus, then, has no dogmatic force. It addresses us, not in its separate portions, but as a whole, and is to be received from the Pope by an act of obedience, not of faith, that obedience being shown by having recourse to the original and authoritative documents, (Allocutions and the like,) to which the Syllabus pointedly refers. Moreover, when we turn to those documents which are authoritative, we find the Syllabus cannot even be called an echo of the Apostolic Voice; for, in matters in which wording is so important, it is not an exact transcript of the words of the Pope, in its account of the errors condemned,–just as would be natural in what is an index for reference. . . . But we can no more accept it as de fide, as a dogmatic document, than any other index or table of contents.
Furthermore, the Syllabus defined no new dogmas. And as we are so often reminded in the context of Vatican II, if something defines no new dogmas, then it is “merely pastoral”; and if it is merely pastoral, then it can safely be ignored completely if we find that it doesn’t conform to our own theological or ecclesiologial views. (At least, that’s how the SSPX has always explained the issue, and who am I to quibble?)

 

[Walking_Home]

I take the position of the SSPX and I attend Mass at an SSPX Chapel - however I took this position before I knew it was the position of the SSPX.

This is a hot topic and may end up being closed, as you feared, because some people cannot bite their tongue and end up breaking the forum rules which is a pity.

Regarding:

“If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.”

The SSPX do not use this in any way against the New Mass. What Trent condemns and anathematized people for, is saying that the pronunciation of the canon in a low tone, is to be condemned - now those who drew up the New Mass did not officially say this, but they do maintain that it is better to say it aloud. There is a difference, albeit slight. Likewise, regarding the “mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only” part, those who drew up the New Mass did not officially say this. It was issued in Latin and they decided where it was beneficial that certain parts could be said in the vernacular. Of course we know they felt that the entire rite was the “certain part” which was beneficial. I recommend reading the book “Reform of the Liturgy” by Archbishop Annibale Bugninni who headed the reform. It is very interesting and documents the views regarding issues such as these.

You know, if you asked an SSPX priest or Bishop how they would have responded to the traditional Mass being celebrated entirely in the vernacular and with the canon said out loud, I am sure you will find that they would have no problems with that - even though they may lament the benefits of Latin and the tradition of inaudible canon.

I do not agree ---- that they (as in any/all) priests and/or bishops would give the same response. From what I have been researching – I have come to believe – that there is a rift growing withing the SSPX. Some priests have/are imbibing a more radical/extemist view — which to me seems to be disseminated via Bishop Williamson.---- while there are other SSPX priests that do not hold these extreme/radical views. Unfortunately–this extremism is also filtering down to the laity who attend some of the SSPX Masses.

 

[Will_S]

Canon. Like Canon Law? I’m under the impression that Canon Law can be changed (we’ve seen that happen often enough).

No, that’s not a Canon Law canon. It’s a Dogmatic Constitution canon. That is, a dogmatic statement that defines the Faith. If you don’t accept it, you don’t have the Catholic Faith.