S
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
In defense of the AB, please include in that record the first definition of the NOM.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=603116&highlight=gamber
S
SaintGobban
Guest
S
SaintGobban
Guest
J
jmj1984
Guest
J
jmj1984
Guest
It should also be pointed out that many priests within the FSSP including Fr Ripperger do not know how to celebrate a NO, have no desire to and probably never will.I am sure that is a matter of great pride to them to. What is unique is the extent to which the Society goes not the claim itself i.e that the NO is worse than the TLM is shared by the FSSP, it is merely the idea that it is ‘evil’ that the FSSP does not subscribe to.
S
SaintGobban
Guest
*You will of course realise that the word used was ‘invalid’ not ‘evil’ or ‘wrong’ there is a world of difference between ‘invalid’ and ‘wrong’. An invalid mass would mean transubstantiation did not take place and those attending it were no better off than if they’d attended a protestant ‘communion service’, ‘evil’ or ‘wrong’ accepts its validity whilst criticising the rubrics and prayers etc… of the mass. These distinctions are well known so you have no excuse for not knowing them *
I would like to respond to this comment of yours above:
Perhaps you did not see the direct quote from SSPX website which I used in my fraternal correction of your incorrect claims about SSPX views of the NOM
So, I’ll reprint them again here:
The SSPX teaches now and has ALWAYS taught that the Novus Ordo Mass is evil and they have strongly asserted that they will NEVER say a Norus Ordo Mass, any of them.
It is matter of great pride to many of them, including Archbishop Lefebvre that they have never said a Novus Ordo Mass and they never will.
**“Therefore, these Masses can be of doubtful validity, and more so with time.”
taken directly from the SSPX website.**
In addition, the exact wording of their condemnation of the NOM is not “wrong” as you have paraphrased, it is EVIL. Further there is another word used, which is POISONOUS.
Let us be honest and clear, your original claim, referring to the top of the page, was that SSPX merely found the NOM “less efficatious,” than the Tridentine Rite.
The SSPX roundly condemns the NOM, refuses staunchly to ever say such a mass, attend such a mass (except as a nonparticipant for a wedding or funeral), and believes it to be intrinsically evil and poisonous to people of good faith.
All of this information is currently, and has always been readily available to anyone who might want to know the SSPX position on the NOM. Just view their website.
I don’t think we need to further play semantic games by introducing their feelings about the “validity” of the mass, after they’ve claimed it is evil and poisonous and no one should attend them, but even if you want to parse and split…they have ALSO said that the mass is doubtfully valid, and the likelihood of its invalidity grows buy the day…
I would like to respond to this comment of yours above:
Perhaps you did not see the direct quote from SSPX website which I used in my fraternal correction of your incorrect claims about SSPX views of the NOM
So, I’ll reprint them again here:
The SSPX teaches now and has ALWAYS taught that the Novus Ordo Mass is evil and they have strongly asserted that they will NEVER say a Norus Ordo Mass, any of them.
It is matter of great pride to many of them, including Archbishop Lefebvre that they have never said a Novus Ordo Mass and they never will.
**“Therefore, these Masses can be of doubtful validity, and more so with time.”
taken directly from the SSPX website.**
In addition, the exact wording of their condemnation of the NOM is not “wrong” as you have paraphrased, it is EVIL. Further there is another word used, which is POISONOUS.
Let us be honest and clear, your original claim, referring to the top of the page, was that SSPX merely found the NOM “less efficatious,” than the Tridentine Rite.
The SSPX roundly condemns the NOM, refuses staunchly to ever say such a mass, attend such a mass (except as a nonparticipant for a wedding or funeral), and believes it to be intrinsically evil and poisonous to people of good faith.
All of this information is currently, and has always been readily available to anyone who might want to know the SSPX position on the NOM. Just view their website.
I don’t think we need to further play semantic games by introducing their feelings about the “validity” of the mass, after they’ve claimed it is evil and poisonous and no one should attend them, but even if you want to parse and split…they have ALSO said that the mass is doubtfully valid, and the likelihood of its invalidity grows buy the day…
T
TrueLight
Guest
Why do they have to say a Novus Ordo Mass?
SaintGobban, did you put the OP up to creating this thread?
T
TrueLight
Guest
What I’ve noticed in my limited experience is that most “traditionalists” who attend the TLM have issues with the NOM. Most believe the TLM is more efficacious, reverent, etc. They might not go around saying it to those who attend the OF, but they discuss it among themselves.
One difference between the FSSP and the SSPX is that you won’t find any verbiage on the FSSP site criticizing the new mass. It was probably part of the agreement when they were founded.
I’m not sure the SSPX will agree to not criticize the NOM.
S
SaintGobban
Guest
Well, of course they don’t, TL. But, then they wouldn’t be Catholics anymore. They would have started their own religion. A religion which believes that the ordinary form of Cathlic Mass is evil, and only the Mass of Pius V is acceptable. They wouldn’t be Cathlic anymore because they would not be in conformity with the teaching and thinking of the Pope and the Magisterium of the Church.Why do they have to say a Novus Ordo Mass?
SaintGobban, did you put the OP up to creating this thread?
That’s what it’s all about…conformity, obedience, thinking with the Church
OR NOT…
One day you’re in…the next you’re OUT
T
TrueLight
Guest
Look at this statement from the FSSP site:
Why couldn’t the SSPX be in communion and celebrate only the EF?
S
SaintGobban
Guest
That is exactly what will happen if they sign the Doctrinal Preamble.
They will be given permission to say exclusively the EF of the Mass.
But, before that can happen, they have to sign a piece of paper in which they affirm their total allegiance and obedience to the Holy See. They have to sign a paper that states that their beliefs are in conformity with those of the Magisterium, that is, in conformity with the thinking of the Church of Rome and with the Head of the Church, the Pope.
That is what all of the various groups which have gone back to Rome had to do.
That is what the Doctrinal Preamble is all about.
If they continue to profess their extremely schismatic views about Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass, they obviously can not sign such a paper.
But failure to do so would put them outside the Church. They would be excommunicated and in schism. They would basically be saying in no uncertain terms, just as Lucifer, “no we will not serve.”
The issues are really just that simple.
I think most people in SSPX, being well informed Catholics, probably understand this.
The the priests of Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter broke away from SSPX and went back to Rome when ABL consecrated the four bishops.
They clearly understood what this meant as far as their status as Roman Catholics, and they wouldn’t go along with ABL.
I’m sure there will be far, far more defections if they don’t sign the preamble, and it will ultimately lead to the total demise of SSPX if they don’t sign.
But, they have dug themselves into a pretty deep hole, and it’s going to be hard to turn it all around now. Whatever they do or don’t do, large numbers of their members will not go along.
From a purely political standpoint, they should sign. From a purely moral standpoint, they should sign.
But because they are filled with pride and the lust for power, they probably won’t sign.
And, that’ll be it for them.
They will be given permission to say exclusively the EF of the Mass.
But, before that can happen, they have to sign a piece of paper in which they affirm their total allegiance and obedience to the Holy See. They have to sign a paper that states that their beliefs are in conformity with those of the Magisterium, that is, in conformity with the thinking of the Church of Rome and with the Head of the Church, the Pope.
That is what all of the various groups which have gone back to Rome had to do.
That is what the Doctrinal Preamble is all about.
If they continue to profess their extremely schismatic views about Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass, they obviously can not sign such a paper.
But failure to do so would put them outside the Church. They would be excommunicated and in schism. They would basically be saying in no uncertain terms, just as Lucifer, “no we will not serve.”
The issues are really just that simple.
I think most people in SSPX, being well informed Catholics, probably understand this.
The the priests of Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter broke away from SSPX and went back to Rome when ABL consecrated the four bishops.
They clearly understood what this meant as far as their status as Roman Catholics, and they wouldn’t go along with ABL.
I’m sure there will be far, far more defections if they don’t sign the preamble, and it will ultimately lead to the total demise of SSPX if they don’t sign.
But, they have dug themselves into a pretty deep hole, and it’s going to be hard to turn it all around now. Whatever they do or don’t do, large numbers of their members will not go along.
From a purely political standpoint, they should sign. From a purely moral standpoint, they should sign.
But because they are filled with pride and the lust for power, they probably won’t sign.
And, that’ll be it for them.
D
Dragonslayer
Guest
The fact is we do not know what is in the preamble, and we do not know how much each “side” will bend or amend this preamble to reach a compromise.
But I can assure you that the SSPX will not accept the NOM and their priests will not say it, and they will not sign a preamble if it precludes them from criticising it, or aspects of Vatican II.That is pretty much a given.
And I don’t see how that will cause the SSPX to stop being Catholic, or to be suddenly placed in Schism. I very much doubt a group, any group, can be placed in schism for not agreeing to not criticise aspects of church practises they disagree with. Especially when their disagreement revolves around the argument that these practises steer too far away from what has been traditionally Catholic.
But I can assure you that the SSPX will not accept the NOM and their priests will not say it, and they will not sign a preamble if it precludes them from criticising it, or aspects of Vatican II.That is pretty much a given.
And I don’t see how that will cause the SSPX to stop being Catholic, or to be suddenly placed in Schism. I very much doubt a group, any group, can be placed in schism for not agreeing to not criticise aspects of church practises they disagree with. Especially when their disagreement revolves around the argument that these practises steer too far away from what has been traditionally Catholic.
P
Peter_Gabriel
Guest
Who are you to judge their hearts and intentions? Tell me, where does the Church declare definitively that one can not criticize the Novus Ordo mass? Why are some Traditionalist groups in ‘full communion’ with Rome allowed such criticism if it is immoral to do so? Obviously because it is not immoral or schismatic to seek to preserve the immemorial mass, and the traditional teachings of the Church. The Church has suppressed certain rites and missals before - why could this not happen with the NO? I have heard several Catholics criticize the TLM, does this sever their communion with the Church? Are they “filled with pride and a lust for power”. I did not know that you have read the preamble, what does it say exactly? Also, when was your meeting with the Pope where he told you that if they do not sign the preamble they will be excommunicated? Can you tell us more about it?
J
JReducation
Guest
I think everyone being a little dramatic here. Allow me to explain some key points.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- No one knows what is in the preamble except for Cardinal Levada, his team and now the leadership of the SSPX. Everything that is going around is pure speculation.
- Cardinal Levada did say that the preamble is not up for negotiations. It’s a take it or leave it. He has said that he has no intention of going over these talks any further. His voice is final on this matter. This has always been the case. The Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Faith always has the final word in any internal dialogue. Popes rarely overrule them. It has not been done in hundreds of years and I don’t see Pope Benedict doing it now.
- Cardinal Levada’s office also said that his office is open to discussing the Council documents. I don’t recall the exact quote, but the message was that everything was always subject to clarification and could be stated more clearly. This is not a problem. The problem would be if there were a refusal to accept the authority of the council documents. If there are questions and requests for clarifications, that is not a problem with the Sacred Congregation.
- If the SSPX refuses to sign the preamble, this does not mean that it will be excommunicated or in schism. What it means is that it would remain in a state of limbo as it is now. What that means for the laity who has aligned itself with the SSPX is unknown. We should not speculate about it.
- If the SSPX bishops were to ordain successor bishops without a papal mandate, then they would incur excommunication. But this would not be the pope or Cardinal Levada excommunicating them. They would be excommunicating themselves, because the law is in place. Nothing more needs to be said.
- There is no reason why they cannot continue to celebrate the Extraordinary Form. However, they will not be allowed to refuse to celebrate the Ordinary Form, if they take on parishes in a diocese. This is the same rule for the FSSP and all of the other Ecclesia Dei institutes. However, it must also be understood that the Church is not out to make people’s lives miserable. The request to celebrate the Ordinary Form is rarely made. The FSSP and the Canons of St. John Cantius do it, because it’s part of their agreement with the local bishops when they take on a parish. The faithful have a right to the Ordinary Form. The Franciscans of the Immaculate do it, because the constitutions of the Franciscan order do not allow the use of the Tridentine Form as the official form of the order. It must remain extraordinary. No friar can be forced to celebrate mass at all. A Franciscan is first a brother, then a priest. He cannot be forced to celebrate the EF. As we can see, these folks are in very specific circumstances. The Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, who do not run parishes and whose constitutions allow them to use the Tridentine Form as the conventual form, are never asked to celebrate the Ordinary Form. Everything depends on the setup. There is a rumor that the SSPX has been offered an ordinariate. If this is true, it can make its own rules regarding the mass, but only for those within the ordinariate. Pushing the EF outside of the ordinariate would be proselytizing and not allowed.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
T
TrueLight
Guest
Brother JR, is there such a thing as a completely traditional parish or does it have to remain a chapel if the priests only want to celebrate the EF?
P
ProVobis
Guest
What about all those who believe that the ordinary form is the only true Mass and that the EF has no place in the Church and will never attend the EF? Or even go to Church, for that matter? And they supposedly are in full communion with the Church?
P
pnewton
Guest
I can see where this might rarely happen.
We had a substitute priest this weekend. I spoke to him about what he wanted for the Mass. His answer was the same I always get, namely, celebrate the Mass the was we always do and he would adapt. I can easily see where a situation might arise where an SSPX priest might occassionally be asked to fill in for a parish when an unforseen emergency arises. In that case, it would be expected that he celebrate the Mass form that was already used there.
Of course, I would hope that those who assist would be accommodating to reasonable requests by that priest.
N
NewsTheMan
Guest
Yeah, it’s bizarre that we never hear about this crowd when people want to label the SSPX as dissidents and schismatics. I have personal real world experience with Catholics who think the Latin Mass is “archaic”, and that if “Rome” made Latin Masses available they would stop being Catholic.
Darn. I really didn’t want to post in this thread. I hope to never post in another SSPX thread at least until the SSPX make known their response to the Preamble.
J
jmj1984
Guest
Brother Jr is this true? I know for one that The institute of the Good Sheperd has an absolute good exception written into its statutes and approved by the Vatican which states that it will never be asked nor will it ever have to celebrate the Novus Ordo Further Fr Ripperger of the FSSP and Proffessor at their American Seminary would appear to disagree as regards having to celebrate the Novus Ordo, he himself has made it clear that he would not do so.
Therefore Brother Jr respectfully I do not believe this restriction would be imposed by the Vatican as it has not been imposed by the Vatican on other groups who have had their relation with Rome normalised (such as The Institute of the Good Shepered), several FSSP priests do not believe they have to do and Rome would not impose on the SSPX a condition they would never agree to.
Respectfully therefore I believe you are mistaken regarding this absolute necessity for them to celebrate the NO if so asked.
- Status