Why did SSPX split?

[Spudbynight]

They can validly administer the Eucharist.

Validly but illicitly I believe.

Still some confusion as to whether Catholics in good standing should receive communion at an SSPX Mass.

Fr.Z blogged about it a little while back

wdtprs.com/blog/2012/07/quaeritur-mass-obligation-at-an-sspx-chapel-and-receiving-communion/

I have attended Mass with the SSPX once. It was in Ireland while on a visit. I didn’t receive communion.

I attended as I felt that with 25% of Irish clergy being members of a dissenting group (the ACP) I had a 1in4 chance of finding a heretic elsewhere!

 

[numealinesimpet]

I have attended Mass with the SSPX once. It was in Ireland while on a visit. I didn’t receive communion.

I attended as I felt that with 25% of Irish clergy being members of a dissenting group (the ACP) I had a 1in4 chance of finding a heretic elsewhere!

More information on the Association of Catholic Priests, which was founded by the Fr Flannery mentioned below, can be found on

Association of Catholic Priests – An Evaluation
sites.google.com/site/catholictopics/current-events/association-of-catholic-priests-an-evaluation

A version of the following letter appeared in The Irish Mail on Sunday, the Clare Champion & Réalt an Deiscirt (Southern Star):

Association of Catholic Priests - Fr Flannery Goes for the Sympathy Vote
sites.google.com/site/catholictopics/current-events/association-of-catholic-priests-_-fr-flannery-goes-for-the-sympathy-vote

Residents and visitors to Ireland will notice that the TV, radio and the major dailies are relentless in their promotion of “The Liberal Agenda” which is virulently anti-Catholic. (Hilaire Belloc wrote in the 1930s that this is what always happens in a “Catholic” country - sooner or later the anti-Catholics worm their way to the top of the power pyramids.)

Any time the ACP issue a ‘Press Release’ it is quoted with breathless enthusiasm by The Media. Statements by the bishops are either downplayed or reported in the same breath as something damaging to the reputation of the Church. I’d like to say that people are not taken in, but huge numbers do seem to be.

The two papers that, in my humble opinion, are truly Catholic (& p.s. I haven’t seen them support the SSPX) are: Catholic Voice (very small circulation) and Alive! (handed out free in shops and door-to-door by volunteers - a large apparent circulation: I only hope people read it). The Provincial papers like the two above are more representative of the true Ireland. With the defection of every single political party and Mass Media group, they have been effectively disenfranchised for many years.

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

The traditional teaching is that no individual may be coerced in the private forum, but that no individual or group has the right to practise a religion in the public forum contrary to that established by Christ - i.e. the Catholic Church.

Obviously this applied in ages past where Catholicism permeated all aspects of life, including politics, where laws and customs were expressions of the culture itself which was Catholic through and through. Many of these laws were grounded in the political conflicts of the time, as was the case of the Conversos in Spain in the 15th century, when Jews and Muslims were forced to convert to Christianity under political pressure.

Traditional teaching is,

Can you site an infallible document which explicitly teaches these traditional teachings you speak of?

I personally have not only studied it, but I know its correct name, which is Dignitatis Humanae

Many who question the teachings of the Church have never actually studied what and why the Church teaches what it does.

If we read the Proceedings of all other Ecumenical Councils (as far as we have the records) up to & including Vatican II, we will find that, when a topic was broached, every single relevant magisterial document back to the New Testament was quoted. Why was this not done at Vatican II? Was it because it would have exposed this rejection of previous teaching?

As for references to past Church documents, simply scroll down to the bottom of the Dignitatis Humanae document and you will find plenty of references, both from Sacred Scripture to past popes like Leo XIII and Pius XII.

The concept of ‘Religious Liberty’, and indeed the whole concept of ‘Rights’ dangling in the air without any Authority to confer those ‘Rights’, arose in the anti-religioous movement of the 18th century known (by its supporters) as ‘The Enlightenment’, and made very explicit at the French Revolution.

The Church teaches the truth about Faith and Morals throughout the ages but evangelizes within the context of the times. Vatican II occurred in the 20th century in order to address a new evangelization. The mission of the Church is to share the gospel, not impose it. It’s one thing to live in a Catholic society, it’s quite another when you are living in a pluralistic society. Incidentally, one of the many factors which gave rise to the French Revolution was the growing inequality of rights among the people, where an increasing monopoly of privileges granted by the State was being held by the nobility in France. Among the factors was the bourgeoisie’s refusal to accept a position of social inferiority to the nobility, which gave rise to a disdain for the aristocracy and the political absolutism of the monarchy. History’s ages of political kings and monarchies is in the past…

Is it not the case that crucifixes, Christmas cribs, and statues have been banned from schools precisely in the name of Religious Liberty?

Face it. Our culture is no longer Christian. I you want laws to reflect the Catholic faith then we have to do a better job to spread the gospel. Catholics need to understand that countries often get the leaders they deserve. If the majority of Catholics in a country are acting as non-Catholics, don’t expect the country to reflect Catholic teaching. Many Catholics in politics today push for abortion rights, contraceptive lifestyles and same-sex marriage. The key to changing changing culture is to convert the culture itself, so that a nation’s laws express the nation’s FAITH. Thus the call for a New Evangelization.

The document also fails to explain what would happen if one group wanted to continue the Aztec religion of cutting out the living hearts of its sacrificial victims and smearing them on the walls…

It goes without saying that the Church will always condemn cutting out the living hearts of sacrificial victims and smearing them on walls. As for the Aztecs, it was 300 Spanish Conquistadores who formed a military alliance with native tribes who had been subjugated by the Aztecs who had forced them into giving human victims as tribute. During the discovery of the New World, the Spanish brought religious missionaries to Christianize the natives. But it wasn’t until the miracle of Guadalupe that 8 million Mexican indians converted to the faith at the same time that Europe was losing Catholics by the millions to the Protestant revolt.

Dignitatis Humanae is not an infallible document, and it is open to legitimate criticismPeople who disagree with the official teaching of the Church on this matter would do well to explain what exactly the Church should teach on the matter of religious liberty in the context of our times. The point of Vatican II was to spark a new evangelization of a rapidly changing culture. Vatican II foresaw the changing times—didn’t give rise to Rock 'n Roll, The Pill and the Drug Culture. Popes since Vatican II have been calling for a new evangelization, which is the task of everyone in the Church—namely the Laity. But as it is, Catholic today contracepts and aborts at the same rate as non-Catholics.

Thus, a nation usually gets the leaders they deserve. When the Nation of Israel rebelled against God, they found themselves wandering in a desert. Vatican II was a blessing—a call to live out the Faith in the world and to share the gifts of faith with those who hunger for Christ.

Here is a talk by Archbishop Fulton Sheen which may shine some light on the subject. It’s well worth listening to…

 

[1AugustSon7]

Just as a general principle, it is not always a sin of disobedience to refuse compliance with the directive of a legitimate authority, neither is it a denial that the legitimate authority exists. Consider the fully-documented case of
What advice should have been given to Bp Grosseteste before he sent that letter to the Pope?

---

I do hope you are not attempting to draw an analogy between Pope John Paul the Great and a Medieval nepotist. I think that would be terribly unfair.

The SSPX’s difficulty is that there isn’t a real analogy. Rome isn’t guilty of flamboyant nepotism nor is the Holy See (or anyone) denying the divinity of Christ. Moreover, a bad, private and very fallible interpretation of the doctrines of Vatican II is not a reason to protest the Church or defame a Catholic Council. Again, nepotism - bad as it is - isn’t worth a schism, which is vastly more serious a sin and - notwithstanding all the confusion since Vatican II - confusion itself is not the same as outright denial of a Catholic dogma (e.g., denying Christ’s divinity - Arianism). It is to Rome to determine the dispensation - the ultimate meaning and interpretation - of the sense of the documents of Vatican II.

Our faith first and foremost tells us to help the Roman Pontiff in his weighty task as the Shepherd of the Universal Church, as his dutiful sons and daughters in the Spirit before God; and not to give him reason to grumble over us, for that - as the Apostle writes in Scripture - would not please God. The Church heirarchy is sacred and ultimately ordained by God for our good and benefit: “He who hears you, hears me.” To “obey”, then, means firstly “to hear” or “to listen to.” Obedience is very closely linked, it would then seem, to faith; for it is by hearing that we have faith, and it is by accepting the word of God from those appointed by God to teach it that the Apostle would praise us - exactly because we accepted it not as the word of men, but as the word of God.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I do hope you are not attempting to draw an analogy between Pope John Paul the Great and a Medieval nepotist. I think that would be terribly unfair.

Not at all. I am trying to clear the ground as a prelude to discussion. The Point about the ‘Pope Innocent IV and Bp Grosseteste Affair’ is to establish the principle that it is possible, within the ambit of the Patrimony of Peter, for a pope to make a prudential judgment that is wrong, and therefore that we have not only a duty but a right to resist – in this particular situation. The reason I cite this case is to show that it will not be possible to argue from the position – ‘the pope said this and therefore we must comply without question.’ Yet this erroneous principle is very frequently employed when an attempt is made to look at the events of the past 50 years. It is possible, therefore, to examine the argument of a dissenter from one or other statement or action of a pope, and declare it faulty in some way, but not simply because the pope (or council) has said it. That would be the case only for an explicitly infallible document. This was made very clear at Vatican I.

Moreover, a bad, private and very fallible interpretation of the doctrines of Vatican II is not a reason to protest the Church or defame a Catholic Council.

We shall, D.V., be examining some actual texts of the Council, comparing them with previous teaching, and also considering what interpretation was put on them afterwards. The complete discussions of the SSPX with the representatives of the Vatican have not been released, but Bp Fellay has noted that the SSPX were very relieved to hear that cetain interpretations were not being presented as mandatory, or even correct, teaching. This was all the more welcome in that it had not been said very firmly, or loudly, before, and many in positions of authority in the Church, both cleric and lay, had been saying the opposite without public correction, for many years.
I heard this on a U-tube interview around last April or May, but do not have the url to hand. I will try to dig it up.

Again, nepotism - bad as it is - isn’t worth a schism, which is vastly more serious a sin

Agreed. The SSPX bishops were not at any time guilty of schism.

It is to Rome to determine the dispensation - the ultimate meaning and interpretation - of the sense of the documents of Vatican II.

Agreed. My understanding is that many, including but not exclusively the SSPX, have been asking for precisely this for decades.
(cont’d…)

 

[numealinesimpet]

(cont’d)…

Our faith first and foremost tells us to help the Roman Pontiff in his weighty task as the Shepherd of the Universal Church, as his dutiful sons and daughters in the Spirit before God;

Agreed. sometimes, as is made very clear in Catholic teaching, the greatest assistance we can give our leaders is to courteously dissent, even publicly [to quote a Vatican II document which I can’t trace at present] … as S.Paul did, and as Cdls Ottviani & Bacci presented to Pope Paul VI:

…Amongst the best of the clergy the practical result is an agonising crisis of conscience of which innumerable instances come to our notice daily.
…
It has always been the case that when a law meant for the good of subjects proves to be on the contrary harmful, those subjects have the right, nay the duty of asking with filial trust for the abrogation of that law.
A. Card. Ottaviani 
A. Card. Bacci

fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html

and not to give him reason to grumble over us

…not to give him just reason to grumble…

for that - as the Apostle writes in Scripture - would not please God.

The same apostle ‘resisted Cephas to his face’:

Gal 2:11 – When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. [NIV]
But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. [Douay]

The Church hierarchy is sacred and ultimately ordained by God for our good and benefit: “He who hears you, hears me.” To “obey”, then, means firstly “to hear” or “to listen to.”

With respect, I must disagree. It is possible to say, “I hear, and I understand your command, and therefore I refuse to comply, because I must obey God before man” (cf. S. Thomas Aquinas on Obedience: Summa Theologica" II-II-104, Whether subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things? e.g. at kensmen.com/catholic/summa22104.html )

I am not here jumping to conclusions at this point, as to which particular instances this would apply; I am setting out the principle.

Obedience is very closely linked, it would then seem, to faith;

True, but they are not the precise same thing.

for it is by hearing that we have faith, and it is by accepting the word of God from those appointed by God to teach it that the Apostle would praise us - exactly because we accepted it not as the word of men, but as the word of God.

Agreed again – but S. Paul reminds us very emphatically that even appointed preachers or authority figures are capable of error - and he tells us what to do about it:

Gal 1:8 – But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! (NIV);
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. (Douay)

To repeat, 1AugustSon7, this is not rushing ahead; I am attempting to establish some ground rules.
With your patience, I will record the truly inspiring visit of Bl. Pope John II to Wembley Stadium, London, in 1982, which I attended, and still use the commemorative bookmark in my breviary. But that should be a different posting.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Yet this was explicitly stated in the Vatican II document that was actually promulgated, with not a single word to explain why there had been this 180 degree change,

The reason is supplied by the context; specfically the historical realities.

From the 16th to the 19th centuries in Europe religious liberty was initially and generally promoted to the injury or prejudice of the Catholic Church. However, there were exceptions, such as in Canada and the USA, where these doctrines had the exact opposite effect and protected the Catholic minorities or subjects from mob violence and also the Church from manipulation, expoitation and violation by the otherwise potentially hostile governments. Later, another exception would be England where it was rightly feared that equality and tolerance of Catholics might lead to a resurgence of Catholicism. Increasingly as time passed, every country that allowed for religious liberty and simultaneously forbade interference of the State in the usual affairs of the Church saw a stabilization and increase in the numbers of Catholics. By the 20th century the doctrine that once was meant to destroy Catholicism on the rash and naive presumption that, e.g., rationalism would single handedly vanquish its supposedly superstitious appeal had actually served to facilitate a vibrant Catholic resurgence even in countries that were effectively de facto hostile to the Church -especially their governments- such as in France and England, but many other places also. Of course, in South America, Spain and Italy this doctrine was still expected to be able to cause nothing but problems, but the Catholic double-standard of demanding religious liberty for Catholic minorites but refusing to grant it to, e.g, Protestants was increasingly becoming good reason to make exceptions for the Catholic Church.

In the 20th century, however, every single regime that opposed religious liberty also opposed not only the Church but even Christianity as a whole. Communist universalism or Fascist nationalism both believed in the absolute subordination of religion to temporal ends and denied religious liberty. Suddenly detestation of religious liberty became a common belief of the Church and her most dangerous and lethal enemies to date. Odd ideological bedfellows to say the least.

The reason for religious liberty was the changes over the times and periods. Initially religious liberty often simply meant nothing more than a platform for the official disenfranchisement of the Catholic Church in Catholic countries. That happened whether the Church wanted it to or not, most conspicuously first in Protestant majority countries but then most painfully in France. However, the vanity of the early Enlightenment soon gave way to reality in that the people did not accept religious liberty as liberty from religion but continued to practice it and, worse of all, to practice the Catholic one and in icreasing numbers. For various reasons, anti-Christians soon abandoned the doctrine as I said and even outright opposed it. In places like England religious liberty was bearing much fruit and received by Catholics with jubilation. Catholics fleeing Europe exactly because of religious persecutions and controversies were glad to be able to practice their religion in peace in the United States. Religious liberty, at one time the Church’s enemy, had become her greatest ally in the developed world and, though at one time “an insanity” it was never “a heresy”.

Today we are seeing a renewed effort by a vicious and intolerant secularism to once more negate religious freedom and liberty and, once more, it seems -intentionally or not- most prejudicial to the Church but, of course, it less or more injures all parties. Moreover, in Islamic countries the need for religious liberty is desperate, and the reason for refusing it is obvious: it would inevitably result in more Christians.

 

[1AugustSon7]

With respect, I must disagree. It is possible to say, “I hear, and I understand your command, and therefore I refuse to comply, because I must obey God before man” (cf. S. Thomas Aquinas on Obedience: Summa Theologica" II-II-104, Whether subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things? e.g. at kensmen.com/catholic/summa22104.html )

With all due respect, sir, I am an ex-Sedevacantist. I know the arguments inside and out; moreover, and with all due respect to Cardinal Ottaviani, his intervention was not necessary. The only thing that it changed was the wording of the General Instruction that accompanied the Pauline rite, and almost certainly this was done by Pope Paul VI for conciliatory reasons and to assuage the doubts of the Cardinal and his supporters. The terms employed in the General Instruction would have, notwithstanding, been defined in a Catholic sense; in fact, they were and are so definined such that the added Tridentine verbiage in the General Instruction is, in fact, utterly redundant.

I will give one example. Some objected here on these forums recently to the OF by noting that the General Instruction originally referred to the Mass as:

“The Lord’s Supper is the assembly or gathering together of the people of God, with a priest presiding to celebrate the memorial of the Lord . . . ” (General Instruction to the Novus Ordo, April 6, 1969).

I replied:

What does “the memorial of the Lord” mean? what did the Church mean by this term?

1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. In all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial.

1363 In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men.184 In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them.

1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ’s Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present.185 "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which ‘Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed’ is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."186

• Catechism of the Catholic Church

Effectively what the error here was and is, is rash presumption. In order to object to the original General Instruction, you had to then and would have to now believe that Pope Paul VI actually lapsed into Protestantism when he promulgated the new Rite and the General Instruction. We discover, however, that the Church of course meant everything she said in a perfectly orthodox and wholly Catholic sense: i.e., there is no cause for objection because, of course, the Pope is Catholic and not a Protestant; moreover, the fact he is guarded from promulgating heresy to the Church in his official capacity of Pope should have been reason enough not to believe that he was trying to convert the Catholic Church to Protestantism or Modernism or whatever.

But returning to the point: your rebuttal is circular reasoning. If the authority is in fact exercising his lawful and divine rights, and you disobey, you are in the wrong and not disobeying a man, but God. The Magisterium is infallible on matters of faith and morals. Lawful disobedience is only possible in instances of individual commands, such as, e.g., in the case of a nepotist Pope trying to enrich his useless cousin; and then only if to obey would be a sin.

 

[numealinesimpet]

The reason is supplied by the context; specfically the historical realities.
…
Religious liberty, at one time the Church’s enemy, had become her greatest ally in the developed world and, though at one time “an insanity” it was never “a heresy”.

We will return to this point.

Today we are seeing a renewed effort by a vicious and intolerant secularism to once more negate religious freedom and liberty and, once more, it seems -intentionally or not- most prejudicial to the Church but, of course, it less or more injures all parties.

At the Founding of the USA the Catholic Hierarchy accepted the compromise of Religious Liberty, which was officially condemned by the popes of the time, to give the Catholic Church breathing space. Is it not true that many of the groups who crossed the Atlantic to escape persecution were not at all ‘liberal’ or ‘ecumenical’, and were very willing to persecute dissenters both in Europe and in the New World? Yes, they wanted to practise their religion without interference, but not out of a love of liberty: they were convinced they were right and the others were wrong, and if they had had the chance to impose their way on the rest of the country, judging by their actions in Europe, many of them would have done so. (Maybe not the Quakers - but I don’t know much about them.) But Religious Liberty, as understood as *‘A right to practise one’s chosen religion in the Private and the Public forum’ *while a useful defensive weapon, is not the Gospel, and it ultimately leads to a stalemate. Likewise, the Peace of Westphalia, which made an official end to the Religious Wars of the 17th Centuries, was an uneasy compromise, which was clearly not founded on a secure basis (it was, that subjects are bound to follow the same religion as their princes)…

1648 The Peace of Westphalia
“After that date (the peace of Westphalia in 1648) the main struggle is at an end throughout Europe, and the effects of the Reformation are established.”
A capital effect of the Peace of Westphalia was to accustom the European mind to the previously-unheard-of notion that peace can be maintained at the same time as permanent religious and philosophical division.

sites.google.com/site/catholictopics/history/how-the-reformation-happened

and led directly to the French Revolution - for there was no answer to the objection, “If religion is so arbitrary that it can be decided on the whim of whichever prince happens to live in our district, then what principle prevents us from abolishing religion altogether?”

It is an historical fact that, immediately after the closing of Vatican II, all countries (including Ireland) that had in their Constitutions that Catholicism was the State Religion, were given direct orders from the Vatican to remove this reference. This has now been done. At this very moment, the enemies of God are strongly pushing to legalise direct abortion in this country - one of the very few left in the world - and it is being done in the name of Pluralism. This is the result that has been foreseen for centuries by the Church.

Moreover, in Islamic countries the need for religious liberty is desperate, and the reason for refusing it is obvious: it would inevitably result in more Christians.

The Moslem countries need, not religious liberty, but conversion. However, in the interim, they would benefit from the application of the traditional Catholic principle: dissenting religions to be tolerated in private, but not in public. (Their view: pending our conversion ot Islam: our view: ending the country’s conversion to the Catholic Church, ‘without which there is no salvation’.)
To do them justice, this is apparently being followed through in Dubai, where I have friends… There is a ‘compound’ in which the Catholics are allowed to have their services, but they must not give public manifestation outside.

 

[numealinesimpet]

With all due respect, sir, I am an ex-Sedevacantist. I know the arguments inside and out; moreover, and with all due respect to Cardinal Ottaviani, his intervention was not necessary. The only thing that it changed was the wording of the General Instruction that accompanied the Pauline rite, and almost certainly this was done by Pope Paul VI for conciliatory reasons and to assuage the doubts of the Cardinal and his supporters. The terms employed in the General Instruction would have, notwithstanding, been defined in a Catholic sense; in fact, they were and are so definined such that the added Tridentine verbiage in the General Instruction is, in fact, utterly redundant.

I will give one example. Some objected here on these forums recently to the OF by noting that the General Instruction originally referred to the Mass as:

“The Lord’s Supper is the assembly or gathering together of the people of God, with a priest presiding to celebrate the memorial of the Lord . . . ” (General Instruction to the Novus Ordo, April 6, 1969).

I replied:

What does “the memorial of the Lord” mean? what did the Church mean by this term?

1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. In all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial.

1363 In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men.184 In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them.

1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ’s Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present.185 "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which ‘Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed’ is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."186

• Catechism of the Catholic Church

Effectively what the error here was and is, is rash presumption. In order to object to the original General Instruction, you had to then and would have to now believe that Pope Paul VI actually lapsed into Protestantism when he promulgated the new Rite and the General Instruction. We discover, however, that the Church of course meant everything she said in a perfectly orthodox and wholly Catholic sense: i.e., there is no cause for objection because, of course, the Pope is Catholic and not a Protestant; moreover, the fact he is guarded from promulgating heresy to the Church in his official capacity of Pope should have been reason enough not to believe that he was trying to convert the Catholic Church to Protestantism or Modernism or whatever.

But returning to the point: your rebuttal is circular reasoning. If the authority is in fact exercising his lawful and divine rights, and you disobey, you are in the wrong and not disobeying a man, but God. The Magisterium is infallible on matters of faith and morals. Lawful disobedience is only possible in instances of individual commands, such as, e.g., in the case of a nepotist Pope trying to enrich his useless cousin; and then only if to obey would be a sin.

Thank you for the reply.
The difficulty with the New Order of Mass is not in anything so obvious as a direct heresy (although the Preface to the 4th Eucharistic prayer, taken out of context, “[Father], you alone are Lord, living and true” should not have been allowed: taken out of context, it denies the Blessed Trinity; likewise, the phrase ‘in the name of Jesus the Lord’, can be said by a Hindu. The Tridentine Rite has no phrase which, even out of context, can be misapplied in this way); it is, as Cdls Ottaviani and Bacci noted, that it leaves the door wide open to heretical interpretations, and many integral points of the Faith are either eliminated or downplayed, which was not the case with the traditional Roman Rite. It is not necessary for SSPX bishops to assert this: it is said with satisfaction by many who are proud to remain outside the Catholic Church.
Note that Mgr Lefebvre insisted, as against the more imprudent dissenter, that the Novus Ordo Missae, when celebrated in Latin according to the rubrics, must be accepted as valid unless and until there be a contrary declaration by either a pope or an Ecumenical council in communion with the pope. He expelled the seminarians who refused to accept this. On the other hand, he did insist that its deficiencies were real.

The practical effect during the 70s and 80s was that the older generation did not notice the omissions, while the yonger generation* never did hear* the parts of Catholic dogma that were omitted. This was contemporaneous with ‘the new catechesis’ in schools which went far beyond anything that Vatican II had mandated, but which went uncorrected. The end result was that teenage children were lapsing in vast numbers, and their bewildered parent did not understand why.

I might note that it was when we saw this all around us that my dear wife and I sat down with a highlighter and studied the actual text of Vatican II: “something’s going wrong: we want to get to the bottom of it”, we said.

I don’t agree that we need to read Pope Paul VI’s mind: the documents speak for themselves. It is an objective fact that the Novus Ordo is open to ambiguity, and this is demonstrated in practice.

 

[1AugustSon7]

We will return to this point.At the Founding of the USA the Catholic Hierarchy accepted the compromise of Religious Liberty, which was officially condemned by the popes of the time, to give the Catholic Church breathing space. Is it not true that many of the groups who crossed the Atlantic to escape persecution were not at all ‘liberal’ or ‘ecumenical’, and were very willing to persecute dissenters both in Europe and in the New World? Yes, they wanted to practise their religion without interference, but not out of a love of liberty: they were convinced they were right and the others were wrong, and if they had had the chance to impose their way on the rest of the country, judging by their actions in Europe, many of them would have done so. (Maybe not the Quakers - but I don’t know much about them.) But Religious Liberty, as understood as 'A right to practise one’s chosen religion in the Private and the Public forum’ while a useful defensive weapon, is not the Gospel, and it ultimately leads to a stalemate. Likewise, the Peace of Westphalia, which made an official end to the Religious Wars of the 17th Centuries, was an uneasy compromise, which was clearly not founded on a secure basis (it was, that subjects are bound to follow the same religion as their princes)… and led directly to the French Revolution

That is an astonishing claim and, for all my life and love of history, I have never heard anyone claim it.

The peace of Westphalia lead directly to the French Revolution? I pray you to stick to Saint Thomas and leave history be! The religious wars of the 17th century exhausted both Catholics and Protestants; it exhausted Christianity in Europe. It was not the peace, but the wars, that lead to the numbing of religious feeling and possibly to the moods and atmosphere that welcomed so much of the Enlightenment’s anti-religious feeling or at least indifferentism. It resulted in a numbing for many not because of the peace, but because for all too may they were numb on account of a cold, dead, lifeless body. What profit was there in Christians openly slaughtering each other? They were all baptized members of Christ: whether lapsed, heretics or whatever they were still Christians and marked with an indelible seal and vocation to serve God.

Notwithstanding, it remains the case that where religious liberty is truly allowed, Catholicism generally prospers; it surely did not fair all that well in countries that persecuted and systematically marginalized Catholics. Today, however, things are looking more promising.

In the last UK census, in 2001, there were 4.2 million Catholics in England and Wales, some 8 per cent of the population. One hundred years earlier, in 1901, they had represented only 4.8 per cent of the population. The percentage of Catholics was at its highest in the 1981 census, with 8.7 per cent.[8] In 2009 an Ipsos Mori poll found 9.6 percent, or 5.2 million, Catholics in England and Wales.[9]

The Catholic Church in the United States is part of the worldwide Catholic Church, the Christian Church in full communion with the Pope. With more than 77.7 million registered members, it is the largest single religious denomination in the United States, comprising 25 percent of the population.[1] The United States has the fourth largest Catholic population in the world, after Brazil, Mexico, and the Philippines.

Personally, I think we can expect more and more converts to Catholicism in the future among religiously minded people of just about every category; moreover, I think that if the Christian religion is going to succeed in establishing its credibility again, it will do so because of the Catolic Church’s doctrine, especially thanks to and as expressed at Vatican II and the Magisterium since. Such is more readily understood by the wider and general population.

One thing is certain, however: if we were to revert back to insanely attacking religious liberty, then conversions from every other religion - and the secular population generally - would almost certainly evaporate; moreover, the Church would seem to give a license to secular governments to marginalize and attack the Church. Religious liberty, to be sure, is one doctrine that the devil does not like; there is no way he could possibly believe in giving the Catholic Church a peaceful existence and, so to speak, a fair shake. And the irony is this: while I vehemently disagree with a lot of ultra- and radical-traditionalists on especially doctrine, I do not believe the government has a right to shut-down their Churches or persecute them in any way: i.e., they are free to keep and practice their beliefs, at least “within due limits.”

I promise you, sir, the Antichrist is going to be the greatest opponent conceivable to religious liberty. There is no possibe way for that doctrine to survive in his regime, because if it did then Christianity would always too.

 

[1AugustSon7]

I don’t agree that we need to read Pope Paul VI’s mind: the documents speak for themselves. It is an objective fact that the Novus Ordo is open to ambiguity, and this is demonstrated in practice.

No one has ever walked away from an OF denying the Trinity or converting to Hinduism. It is not vague:

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by ProVobis
Okay but for 40 years the Catholic heard “Pray, brethren, that** our **sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.”

Which is perfectly correct, orthodox and true regardless.

We all participate in the sacrifice because we are all the body of Christ; the faithful spiritually unite their own (daily) sacrifices (e.g. their prayers, sufferings and works (of charity)) to and with Christ’s own sacrifice on the cross. Cf. any traditional Morning Offering prayer.

This is the Church as the Body of Christ united with her Head on the cross praying to God the Father: Christ offered himself up to his Father on the cross on behalf of sinful humanity (cf. Pope Pius XII, CCC 1939, #2). This is perfectly accurate, correct and orthodox:

[CCC 1368, #2] In the catacombs the Church is often represented as a woman in prayer, arms outstretched in the praying position. Like Christ who stretched out his arms on the cross, through him, with him, and in him, she offers herself and intercedes for all men [cf. Lk 23.34].
(The reference to the catacombs, of course, is to demonstrate the antiquity of this Christian belief about the nature of the Church and the Mass.)

Moreover, the words (the faithfuls’ reponse) that follow afterwards qualify the priest’s invitational prayer; for we pray that his (i.e., the priest’s) sacrifice at his hands be accepted by the Lord (i.e., specifically or perhaps especially God the Father through, with and in Christ). That is, the specific necessity of the priest in this sacramental offering and sacrifice is explicitly acknowledged and stated by and in the faithfuls’ response.

Furthermore, “at your hands” is a specific reference to the sacerdotal priesthood:

[CCC 1369, #3] . . . Through the ministry of priests the spiritual sacrifice ***of the faithful ***is completed in union with the sacrifice of Christ the only Mediator, which in the Eucharist is offered **through the priests’ hands **in the name of the whole Church in an unbloody and sacramental manner until the Lord himself comes.192

• Presbyterorum ordinis.

Mark carefully the reference to “the priests’ hands”. As a traditionalist, Pro Vobis, I know full well you know the importance of this reference vis-a-vis the uniquely Catholic idea of the sacerdotal priesthood.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ProVobis
And this was right after the Presentation of the Gifts and the “this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made.” and “we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands” Offertory. See the disassociation between “our” sacrifice and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? Or didn’t any one else notice it?

See above.

This is the i) praise and ii) thanksgiving that every Mass since the first* has given to God the Father (as Creator) for the i) gift of his creation, with its twofold element(s): creation as such (i.e., all things not human but placed in subjection to us) and ii) for mankind as such, who is able to make good use of the aforementioned gift of God’s creation. It would be seriously ungrateful to neglect to give God thanks for his work of creation and His even placing it under our feet: i.e., in subjection to us.

*Mt 26.26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, **and when he had given thanks ***, he broke it . . .

27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them . . .
Now the Catechism :

1360 The Eucharist is a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the Father, a blessing by which the Church expresses her gratitude to God for all his benefits, for all that he has accomplished through creation, redemption, and sanctification. Eucharist means first of all “thanksgiving.”*

 

[1AugustSon7]

Thank you for the reply.
The difficulty with the New Order of Mass is not in anything so obvious as a direct heresy (although the Preface to the 4th Eucharistic prayer, taken out of context, “[Father], you alone are Lord, living and true” should not have been allowed: taken out of context, it denies the Blessed Trinity

But wouldn’t claiming multiple lords be blasphemy and polytheism, though? There is only one Lord. Christians do not believe in three lords, but one Lord, God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Just as each Person is God, but there are not three gods, but one God; so is each Person Lord, but these are not three lords, but one Lord.

But if you can find any orthodox or received credal statement acknowledging and confessing our belief in “three lords” then I suppose your remark here might be legitimately entertained; otherwise, then, I think it might be the objection that is potentially heterodox.

EDIT : ADDED : As you may have been able to gather by now, I am extremely tired and it is very late here. I can’t possibly give enough care and time your posts deserve in their own right before responding anymore, and I feel I have done an injustice to my position already in attempting, while also not giving your posts their due in consideration.

Peace be with you, and have a good day [night]. Hopefully we can continue this exchange tomorrow!

 

[jmymac]

Mainly because they did not accept the Vatican II Council decisions under Pope John XXIII,
which changed the Mass to allow Catholic priests to say Mass in the native language.
They are traditionalists. Another change was turning the priest toward the congregation during Mass and making them part of the Mass not just being spectators.
We have a SSPX church about a mile from All Saints Church in Walton, Ky. It is more than a coincidence that they are visible to each other.
As I recall Pope Benedict XVI tried to allow them back in the Church but at the last minute they refused the arrangements. I do not know their status as of now.
I don’t wish to offend anyone who is a part of SSPX. Many of these people in Walton are people I knew years ago. I may be corrected on any thing I have said. I’m sure this separation from the Church has a much better explanation then I have given.

 

[Mike30]

But wouldn’t claiming multiple lords be blasphemy and polytheism, though? There is only one Lord. Christians do not believe in three lords, but one Lord, God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Just as each Person is God, but there are not three gods, but one God; so is each Person Lord, but these are not three lords, but one Lord.

But if you can find any orthodox or received credal statement acknowledging and confessing our belief in “three lords” then I suppose your remark here might be legitimately entertained; otherwise, then, I think it might be the objection that is potentially heterodox.

EDIT : ADDED : As you may have been able to gather by now, I am extremely tired and it is very late here. I can’t possibly give enough care and time your posts deserve in their own right before responding anymore, and I feel I have done an injustice to my position already in attempting, while also not giving your posts their due in consideration.

Peace be with you, and have a good day [night]. Hopefully we can continue this exchange tomorrow!

Father in heaven, it is right that we should give you thanks and glory: you are the one God, living and true. Through all eternity you live in unapproachable light.

I can see a bit of ambiguity there. The Trinity is composed of three persons, The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Together they comprise God. True each is God in his own right but it takes all three to comprise God. To someone not well schooled in theology or the dogma of the Trinity hearing this could misunderstand and think that the Father alone is God and that the Son and the Holy Spirit don’t really matter.

Just playing devils advocate here

 

[1AugustSon7]

Father in heaven, it is right that we should give you thanks and glory: you are the one God, living and true. . . .

I can see a bit of ambiguity there. The Trinity is composed of three persons, The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Together they comprise God.

Hmmm. It would seem we need to stop here.

According to Catholic teaching, because each person is God whole and entire, the Preface to EP IV here is, doctrinally, perfectly fine. The reason is because all the persons are wholly and entirely in each of the persons: i.e., the Father is in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, the Son is in the Father and in the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is in the Father and in the Son.

True each is God in his own right but it takes all three to comprise God.

To say “each is God in his own right” is quite correct. To say “it takes all three to comprise God” is actually a bit ambiguous.

“But each [person] is God whole and entire” and each of them “is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature” (CCC 253). Consequently we can confidently say, e.g., that “the Father is God whole and entire; he is that supeme reality, the divine substance, essence or nature” and, of course, we can say the same for each of the other two persons in the Trinity.

I think what you might have forgotten a bit here is that each person of the Trinity is wholly in the others also. Thus, as the Catechism says, “the Son is wholly in the Father … the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father…” (CCC 255). The Son and the Holy Spirit, therefore, are each of them wholly “in the Father.” No one, in other words, is “missing” in the Father.

To someone not well schooled in theology or the dogma of the Trinity hearing this could misunderstand and think that the Father alone is God and that the Son and the Holy Spirit don’t really matter.

Alright, to make a long story short (and I will give the long story) one cannot say that the texts (whether pre-reform or the reformed) necessarily implies that “the Father alone is God” - not, that is, without doing violence to the text.

------- THE LONG STORY -----

(Pre-reform Text

Father in heaven, it is right that we should give you thanks and glory: you are the one God, living and true.

Which, as we have seen, is perfectly correct.

(Reformed Text

It is truly right to give you thanks, truly just to give you glory, Father… for you are the one God living and true . . .

See: old.usccb.org/romanmissal/samples-priest-prayer4.shtml

I think it would be wrong to say that “the Father is alone” (i.e., that he is* alone -**“period!*”, in the sense of being solitary ) ; for God is not solitary and, therefore, it would be wrong to say that God (either the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit) is solitary, or that the Trinity is solitary, for that would seem to ascribe an imperfection to God.

Consider that it can be said (even our Lord affirmed it) “Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God, and him only shalt thou serve.” Consequently, we can also say that the Father (or the Lord Jesus or the Holy Spirit) “is one God.” And this is what is affirmed in the Preface to EP IV.[/INDENT]

I grant, however, that saying “the Father alone is God” does not sit well at all on pious and Christian ears, because “alone” almost inevitably seems to apply the idea of being solitary; however, and to the point, saying that “Father… you are the one God, living and true” (and both versions say this same thing) is, in fact, perfectly orthodox. If it were otherwise, then saying “the Lord thy God is one God” would necessarily mean that God is solitary, which of course it does not mean.

-------- END OF THE LONG STORY -----

Just playing devils advocate here

And you played the devil’s advocate well This is pretty tough stuff but it is also very enlightening.

In conclusion, what is said in the Preface to EP IV is perfectly orthodox, for the Church believes that the Father is truly “the one God” who is “living and true”; for the Father is one God, and we do not believe in three gods, but one God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, each of whom is wholly and entirely God. Moreover, one cannot conclude any heterodoxy from the Preface without doing violence to the words or, otherwise, questioning the Catholic dogma of the Trinity. Finally, the Eucharist is being offered to the Father specifically, in keeping with the Lord’s command to do this in remembrance of him, and in immitation of our Lord’s own praise, thanksgiving and sacrifice, which he gave and offered to the Father on behalf of humanity, with which (sacrifice) we unite ourselves to in the holy sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[numealinesimpet]

…

Thanks for the many detailed replies, and I feel that we can debate to mutual profit and instruction. I don’t like to mention it, but some posters (not on this particular thread so far) never get beyond bad-tempered accusations of ill will, or sweeping statements that do but reveal their ignorance. Likewise, I am only a Catholic dad and layman. With your patience, we will continue to debate as time allows. I am (if I may say so ) very happy that you have rejected the false option of sedevacantism. I will consider your replies carefully and give my response - but like us all, I find that time for devoting to the debate is limited.

 

[numealinesimpet]

have not studied Dignitatis Humanis…

I personally have not only studied it, but I know its correct name, which is Dignitatis Humanae…

I hope you will forgive me that I couldn’t resist teasing you on getting the name wrong … unfortunately there are those on both sides who make sweeping statements without the essential background knowledge. Thus many demand that we all ‘obey the teachings of Vatican II’. For many years now, I have asked, ‘Can you tell me what are these teachings that we are bound to follow?’ and to this very day nobody has supplied even one. As far as I know, Bp Fellay made the same kind of comment to the Vatican.
Serafin, I will respond to your other points when time allows.
Best wishes
numealinesimpetar

 

[numealinesimpet]

**1AugustSon7: **

nume

: At the Founding of the USA the Catholic Hierarchy accepted the compromise of Religious Liberty, which was officially condemned by the popes of the time, to give the Catholic Church breathing space. Is it not true that many of the groups who crossed the Atlantic to escape persecution were not at all ‘liberal’ or ‘ecumenical’, and were very willing to persecute dissenters both in Europe and in the New World? Yes, they wanted to practise their religion without interference, but not out of a love of liberty: they were convinced they were right and the others were wrong, and if they had had the chance to impose their way on the rest of the country, judging by their actions in Europe, many of them would have done so. (Maybe not the Quakers - but I don’t know much about them.) But Religious Liberty, as understood as ‘A right to practise one’s chosen religion in the Private and the Public forum’ while a useful defensive weapon, is not the Gospel, and it ultimately leads to a stalemate. Likewise, the Peace of Westphalia, which made an official end to the Religious Wars of the 17th Centuries, was an uneasy compromise, which was clearly not founded on a secure basis (it was, that subjects are bound to follow the same religion as their princes)… and led directly to the French Revolution

1AugustSon7

: That is an astonishing claim and, for all my life and love of history, I have never heard anyone claim it. I realise this will be astounding to citizens of the USA, whose State was founded on, among other principles, that of Liberty, including Religious Liberty, but here in Europe it is a widespread realisation among many that this was a particular response to a novel situation that was, after all, a compromise with true Catholic principles that, unfortunately, carries the seeds of its own ultimate defeat - if the aim is the conversion of the world to the Kingship of Christ, which is what we were mandated to do (Mt 28:19). It was at Vatican II that the ‘Rhine Group’ of bishops, allied with the American, succeeded in getting this half-truth of Religious Liberty proclaimed as official teaching, reversing all previous official teaching. The Holy Spirit protected the Church by ensuring, however, that this was not proclaimed with the formula of infallible teaching.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Father in heaven, it is right that we should give you thanks and glory: you are the one God, living and true. Through all eternity you live in unapproachable light.

I can see a bit of ambiguity there. The Trinity is composed of three persons, The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Together they comprise God. True each is God in his own right but it takes all three to comprise God. To someone not well schooled in theology or the dogma of the Trinity hearing this could misunderstand and think that the Father alone is God and that the Son and the Holy Spirit don’t really matter.

Just playing devils advocate here

Brother - you know what! - mea culpa! I needlessly over complicated my earlier reply.

Consider that never once has anyone been afraid that Christians might lose their Trinitarian faith by, e.g., praying the flagship prayer of our faith; namely.

Our Father, who art in heaven…

Now this prayer is perfect. Indeed, our Lord himself gave it to us to pray. Not once is the Son or the Holy Spirit mentioned - at least not explicitly. However, its orthodoxy is unquestionable, and the reason is simple: the Our Father is prayed i) through Christ and ii) in the Spirit.

Similarly, in the EF (Tridentine) Mass, it is said, e.g., in the Te igitur,

Te ígitur, clementíssime Pater, per Jesum Christum Fílium tuum Dóminum nostrum súpplices rogámus ac pétimus

Wherefore, O most merciful Father, we humbly pray and beseech thee, through Jesus Christ thy Son, our Lord

Here something otherwise absolutely and necessarily implicit is made explicit; namely, that we are praying to the Father through the Son (and, of course, in the Holy Spirit (cf. Rom 8.15)).

Consider again, for example, that if I were being tortured to death by an angry mob, that I might cry out: “Father! Have mercy on us! Forgive them! For you alone are holy, you alone are merciful, and you alone are good!” Now on hearing that no one would claim that I had just apostatized by denying the Son or the Spirit; far from it, in fact, and quite the opposite conclusion would be drawn. This is because, as the Apostle says to the Romans (8.15):

“… the spirit you have now received is not, as of old, a spirit of slavery, to govern you by fear; it is the spirit of adoption, which makes us cry out, Abba, Father.”

Therefore, as is in fact quite appropriate and even sanctioned by our Lord, in the Preface to EP IV we are praying to and adressing our heavenly Father through Christ in the Holy Spirit; no differently than, e.g., when we pray to him in the Our Father, except being a specifically Eucharistic prayer, we are giving the Father thanks and praise for all his benefits as, indeed, our Lord also did “on the night he was betrayed”.