Spiritual advantage. A valid Mass is still a valid Mass.Why attend a Mass which isn’t in full communion YET when you can attend one which has always been in full communion?
Given the current environment, I wouldn’t hold my breath. The Vatican’s got a whole lot of other problems right now. But I could be wrong. I never thought I’d ever see the Pope removing the excommunications.I’m glad the SSPX people are coming back. It’s about time.
Dear mariediana… I believe you will find the MASS is valid and legitimate in EVERY detail. The SSPX may not be in full communication at this time, however they (SSPX) have had a positive impact on FAITHFUL CATHOLICS in remote areas where SSPX priests often travel hundreds of miles in order to bring TLM. Areas where the EF is not celebrated now, and where there are no intentions of introduction in the future.Why attend a Mass which isn’t in full communion YET when you can attend one which has always been in full communion?**
Heck, they have a positive impact on wayward Catholics lost in the wilderness of apostasy. Their consistent, passionate, and dignified portrayal of the traditional Catholic faith and their defense of various and sundry Western traditions and institutions was what helped to draw me back to Catholicism roughly a year ago. Milquetoast modern “Catholicism” did not, and could not, do it.Dear mariediana… I believe you will find the MASS is valid and legitimate in EVERY detail. The SSPX may not be in full communication at this time, however they (SSPX) have had a positive impact on FAITHFUL CATHOLICS in remote areas where SSPX priests often travel hundreds of miles in order to bring TLM. Areas where the EF is not celebrated now, and where there are no intentions of introduction in the future.
I will rejoice when full communion is realised…*
Why settle for one when it is possible to attend both on the same day? An SSPX chapel is a valuable asset to the local Catholic community. They deserve all the support we can legitimately provide.Do you feel that everyone who disagrees with you hates you? I know of no hatred spewed here. We were discussing the original excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre and his disobedience to the Pope. Since the SSPX is not entirely in communion with the church as yet, they are still to be avoided.
Why attend a Mass which isn’t in full communion YET when you can attend one which has always been in full communion?
I’m glad the SSPX people are coming back. It’s about time.
Sorry, but at least partially wrong…Latin Mass Society and Una Voce are not clergy per se. The SSPX were probably the only traditional clergy prior to 1988 still in existence today.
The Mozarabic, Bragan, Ambrosian, Dominican, Carmelite, Carthusian: all are Latin. In point of fact, the Dominican is a 13th C variant of the Roman; the differences are accretions within the Roman Church, and all of these are technically forms, not Rites, but called rites out of longstanding misuse of the term.We are dealing directly with the “Latin” rite porition of the church, not the other legimate rites within the Catholic Church of which there are 9 if I’m not mistaken.
What are you trying to say? That these orders were responsible for preserving the TLM?The Mozarabic, Bragan, Ambrosian, Dominican, Carmelite, Carthusian: all are Latin. In point of fact, the Dominican is a 13th C variant of the Roman; the differences are accretions within the Roman Church, and all of these are technically forms, not Rites, but called rites out of longstanding misuse of the term.
Dominicans are quite widespread… but their rite is normally only for those within their order. Their order preserves the late 12th C Roman Missal… they never were required to shift to the Trent missal.What are you trying to say? That these orders were responsible for preserving the TLM?
I really don’t know much about them. How widespread are they? Were they asked to change their customs after Vatican II?
This list only proves the point of the untenable position in which the Vatican found itself. Why was it that, of all Rites and Uses (many of which were confined to tiny, localised groups, down to the Toledo Rite that was confined to just one side-chapel of Toledo Cathedral), only the Traditional Roman Rite – protected “until the End of Time” (“in perpetuam”) by Pope S. Pius V – was effectively banned for the Faithful? The declared aim of the SSPX was “to keep the pilot light burning until the church again turns on the gas”. This is what they have achieved, and for this I salute them.Sorry, but at least partially wrong…
The priests using the Mozarabic, Bragan, and Ambrosian Rites in their respective dioceses (Toledo Spain, Braga Portugul, and Florence Italy), plus the Dominican Friars using the Dominican Rite are still very much using a Traditional Rite, and still do. (Tho’ the Mozarabic is getting a partial facelift and translation into modern Spanish.)
But do they say the Old Dominican Rite publicly? I know of none who do. Can anybody explain why not?I’ve yet to meet a Dominican who isn’t familiar with the Dominican Missal… approved by papal right well before Trent and still in use unchanged… since it’s the missal used in their mother-houses.
I would have to dispute that statement as regards popular perception of “the Man in the Pew”.The SSPX brought the internal disputes to the forefront… by acts called Schismatic by HH JP II. But in so doing, also brought light on the other “traditional” Western Liturgies which were and are still in use.
That was not so in the British Isles in the 1950s. I served Mass regularly and, when a Dominican or Calced Carmelite visited the parish, he said Mass according to his own Use (the previous poster is correct in that these are ‘subsets’ of the Roman Rite & are technically called “Uses”).Dominicans are quite widespread… but their rite is normally only for those within their order.
Indeed. Note the compassion and good sense of all previous legislation on the liturgy. There was a purpose to the Tridentine Reform: many Missals had adopted prayers and practices from the Protestant heresy, and hence the previous relaxed customs were tightened up. All liturgies more recent than 200 years were suppressed; but any that could show a form more than 200 years old – before the protestant Rebellion – could be retained as an option. there was no good reason to suppress these venerable and loved traditions, and so they were protected by Quo Primum – which is a shining example of clear and workable legislation. It stated the level of authority, both what was & what was not the law, and much else. To put it mildly, it compares very favourably with the heavy-handed actions of Pope Paul VI. Indeed, while making it very clear that he wanted the Novus Ordo Missae adopted everywhere, he did not actually attempt to abolish it with full legal force. That is what this is all about. It was not “open disobedience” to continue with an immemorial custom that was specifically protected until the end of time.Their order preserves the late 12th C Roman Missal… they never were required to shift to the Trent missal.
N.B. the Carmelites were reformed by S. Teresa of Avila & S. John of the Cross. They went back to sandals, hence the nickname “Discalced”. They adopted the Tridentine (1570) Missal, in response to the document (Quo Primum) establishing it as the “default” Roman liturgy. The Carmelite communities that did not follow these reforms (but underwent spiritual renewal) were named the Calced Carmelites and retained their own Use. Both Dominicans and Carmelites had variations in the Ordinary of the Mass (one was much more different from the TLM than the other, but I don’t remember which it was) and very many Dominican/Carmelite Feasts. In Ayelsford and Faversham, in Kent, England, there are communities of both Carmelite branches, and they offer the Novus Ordo exclusively. In Aylesford about 10 years ago I was there for Benediction, and everybody, priest & lay, had actually forgotten how the hymns and service went. As my family & I had decided that the SSPX were in the right, and had been attending their ceremonies, catechism, etc etc, for many years, we alone seemed to know how it went. Once again, I salute the SSPX.Carmelites are equally as widespread; tho most of their houses do not use it, their pre-Trent missal, adapted from the Roman, is still permitted to be used by Carmelite priests.
I spoke with a layman who tested his vocation with them in the early 70s (he saved up for a year to go there & lasted 19 days. When he apologised, the Rector told him that most pre-postulants last only 24 hours). He said that, after Vatican II, they were politely invited to update their liturgy and practices. Their superior General equally politely replied that they had had no need to change anything in the previous 800 years and saw no reason to start now. But whether they continued with this, I don’t know.Carthusians likewise.
Yes, it is the form that was in use all over Europe, including Ireland, but gradually gave way to the Roman Use as the centuries went on. Mostly this was done without any great fuss. It was in use before the invention of the printing press and there was probably never a uniform standard. It had much more variation from Mass to Mass than the Roman Use, and the priest had two Missals on the altar. It was always in Latin. it is the form that S. Patrick would have used. There was no sense of opposition to Rome in those pre-instant communication days. But there was great hostility to the adoption of the Date for Easter (as with the Eastern branches also). At least, that is how it is always described in the ancient accounts, but I have sometimes wondered is that merely their way of describing the entire liturgical system – rather as many nowadays talk about “The Latin Mass” as if the Latin were the only, or the main, thing.The Mozarabic Mass has no order behind it; the Roman Rite priests of the Diocese of Toledo may use the Mozarabic missal instead of the Roman when in certain parishes. It’s a Latin mass, but not the Trent missal. The Mozarabic is apparently a hybrid of the Galican Rite and the Roman Rite, and dates to the 9th or 10th C.
Actually, they don’t say that at all, except insofar as Pope S. Pius X is holding and enforcing the Catholic Faith and discipline. Mgr Lefebvre always denied that he had any special theology apart from what the Church has always taught, and his writings are 100% consistent with this.The Society deceitfully claims to follow the teachings of Pope St. Pius the Tenth.
About Modernists, eh? The whole point of the “Trad” position is that no Catholic can be compelled to embrace a novelty that rejects immemorial tradition.Hear then what this great Pope had to say about Modernists
when speaking of Obedience to the Church.
Jesus said to His Apostles, “Whoever listens to you, listens to Me; Whoever rejects you, rejects Me; And Whoever rejects Me, rejects Him who sent Me.”
Although it doesn’t seem easy to trace this quote to source, it is the kind of thing I can imagine him saying…Obedience to the Magisterium of the Church and especially to Her visible leader, the Pope, is an essential criterion for faithfulness to God. Pope St. Pius X emphasized this in a speech on May 10, 1909, when he said “Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her… But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments…, then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone.” (Eph. 2:20)
(Encyclical Pascendi. Pius X)But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the Second council of Nicea, where it conems those “who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind… or endeavour by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church”… Far, far from our priests be the love of novelty!"
Because one is illicit and one is not.Why settle for one when it is possible to attend both on the same day? An SSPX chapel is a valuable asset to the local Catholic community. They deserve all the support we can legitimately provide.
I simply cannot imagine where you would get such a notion.Maria
Have I understood you correctly? You actually avoid everyone who is not a member of the Roman Catholic Church?!
So you’re saying that Pope John Paul’s direction to Archbishop Lefebvre that he NOT ordain the new bishops was contrary to Divine law? How so?This presupposes that the Superiors act within their brief. See S. Thomas Aquinas again. Not all commands of legitimate superiors are lawful. If the command of a superior is contrary to Divine law (I am not jumping the gun here by discussing the individual case of the SSPX, but stating the general principle) then it is a Christian duty to refuse compliance, because the alleged law is not a law but an abuse of authority, and to comply would be to be complicit in the sin against justice. This also is in Aquinas. This is indeed the nub of the matter. I believe that the stronger argument here lies with the SSPX. .
Not necessarily. There have been certain SSPX Masses which have been licitly granted, such as celebrating in the Vatican and other places probably. I can easily see them extending liceity to more SSPX Masses, especially to the older SSPX parishes where we now have a second and third and fourth generation of Catholics since the order was established. The only question remains is how do they get the SSPX attackers up to speed as they seem to question and denounce any rulings made by the Vatican.Because one is illicit and one is not.