TRADITIONIS CUSTODES

[Nihil Obstat]

Vanishingly few members of the Society claim that the Novus Ordo is invalid. Those few who did generally followed Bp. Williamson after his well deserved expulsion, or earlier when the SSPV was formed.

[Peace]

 

1 minute ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Vanishingly few members of the Society claim that the Novus Ordo is invalid. Those few who did generally followed Bp. Williamson after his well deserved expulsion, or earlier when the SSPV was formed.

Could be man I dunno. You still have this on the website:

https://sspx.org/en/must-catholics-attend-new-mass

I mean they say lame stuff like "Well the question is not whether the NO is valid or invalid . . . oh by the way the NO puts your faith in danger, you have no obligation to attend it, and you commit sin if you do attend it."

"But we aren't saying its invalid".

[Nihil Obstat]

¯\_(ツ)_/ ¯ Those are two very different questions. I think there is much worth debating regarding the Society's theological and pastoral positions, but it will always be a non-starter if we cannot even be clear about which positions we are criticizing.

[SicutColumba]

I’m mostly worried for the ICR/FSSP parishes and those that attend them. What about convents and monasteries whose offices and liturgies are in Latin and who depend on local priests who say the Latin Mass? For example, the Sister Adorers of the ICR?  Our FSSP parish sent out an email today saying that they will « continue to serve the faithful » but we don’t know what that means concretely. Thankfully the bishop of our diocese is favorable to the Latin Mass so we will probably be able to continue with the TLM. It’s so stupid to say but I kind of think that (in the very, very long run) this situation might possibly provoke a full reunification of the SSPX to Rome. I don’t know why I say this because Traditionis Custodes is basically a ban on the TLM but I feel that the ICR and FSSP are going to be forced to collaborate with them. Perhaps it’s a dreadfully stupid opinion but we know that in the end the gates of hell won’t prevail against the Church, even if she seems to be making some incompréhensible décisions. But this is not a thread about the SSPX. 

[Peace]

21 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

¯\_(ツ)_/ ¯ Those are two very different questions. I think there is much worth debating regarding the Society's theological and pastoral positions, but it will always be a non-starter if we cannot even be clear about which positions we are criticizing.

Well in my view they are saying that its not valid, but its done in a "wink, wink" sort of style instead of being explicit about it.

I mean, how does it logically conclude that it is sin for a Catholic to attend a valid Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest?

13 minutes ago, SicutColumba said:

I’m mostly worried for the ICR/FSSP parishes and those that attend them. What about convents and monasteries whose offices and liturgies are in Latin and who depend on local priests who say the Latin Mass? For example, the Sister Adorers of the ICR?  Our FSSP parish sent out an email today saying that they will « continue to serve the faithful » but we don’t know what that means concretely. Thankfully the bishop of our diocese is favorable to the Latin Mass so we will probably be able to continue with the TLM. It’s so stupid to say but I kind of think that (in the very, very long run) this situation might possibly provoke a full reunification of the SSPX to Rome. I don’t know why I say this because Traditionis Custodes is basically a ban on the TLM but I feel that the ICR and FSSP are going to be forced to collaborate with them. Perhaps it’s a dreadfully stupid opinion but we know that in the end the gates of hell won’t prevail against the Church, even if she seems to be making some incompréhensible décisions. But this is not a thread about the SSPX. 

I don't see it as a ban. I would say that fundamentally it puts the decision of whether to celebrate the TLM back in the hands of individual bishops, rather than giving parish priests the discretion to celebrate it without permission from their bishops.

I guess what I don't like about this new document by PF is that it seems to make the TLM a scapegoat of sorts, instead of dealing with the core issue. Maybe there might be some issue of division within the Church, but is that the fault of the TLM itself? I don't think so. Is nixing the TLM going to solve the problem of division? I doubt it. I think you are just trying to nix the TLM, but the underlying issues that cause the division still remain.

But on the other hand I can see it from PF's standpoint too. I think he wants to take the church in the direction of "Vatican 2" or whatever, and he feels like the trads are preventing him from doing that. So nixing the TLM is almost kind of like a "fidelity test" of sorts. It's kind of like, I"m leaving you with no option so you can either get on board with where I am trying to take the Church, or get off board.

Edited July 17, 2021 by Peace

[Nihil Obstat]

11 minutes ago, Peace said:

Well in my view they are saying that its not valid, but its done in a "wink, wink" sort of style instead of being explicit about it.

I mean, how does it logically conclude that it is sin for a Catholic to attend a valid Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest?

 

Some extreme examples? A laicized and excommunicated priest offering Mass at the blessing of a homosexual union? A priest whose faculties have been revoked due to heresy organizing a protest and offering Mass at the steps of the local Cathedral? A priest joining the Nazi party and celebrating Mass at a Party convention? You can probably come up with more.

 

The Society tends to be precise in how they state their official positions. As the Church has tended to be. Say what you want about them, they are more likely to be attacked for their bluntness, not their shiftiness. I think we ought to do them the courtesy of engaging with them in the same way and in good faith, not looking to criticize positions which they explicitly do not hold. It does nothing for the discussion except continue to alienate a group to whom a great many people are already by default openly hostile.

You could try to criticize them for being Feeneyites too if you wanted (indeed I have met people who did). It would be equally useless because they explicitly reject Fr. Feeney's positions, if you care to look for them.

[Peace]

5 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Some extreme examples? A laicized and excommunicated priest offering Mass at the blessing of a homosexual union? A priest whose faculties have been revoked due to heresy organizing a protest and offering Mass at the steps of the local Cathedral? A priest joining the Nazi party and celebrating Mass at a Party convention? You can probably come up with more.

Sure, but none of these examples are applicable to the present case.

5 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

The Society tends to be precise in how they state their official positions. As the Church has tended to be. Say what you want about them, they are more likely to be attacked for their bluntness, not their shiftiness. I think we ought to do them the courtesy of engaging with them in the same way and in good faith, not looking to criticize positions which they explicitly do not hold. It does nothing for the discussion except continue to alienate a group to whom a great many people are already by default openly hostile.

You could try to criticize them for being Feeneyites too if you wanted (indeed I have met people who did). It would be equally useless because they explicitly reject Fr. Feeney's positions, if you care to look for them.

OK I will concede that you have a valid point. It is unfair to say that they call the NO "invalid" without producing a specific statement where they say that it is not valid. It would be fair to lay criticism based only on actual statements they have made.

So I'll restate my original post:

How can a group reject important parts of Vatican 2 and claim not to be in schism? How can they say this:
 

Quote

 

Now, a “protestantized” (in itself) and a “protestantizing” (for the mentality of those attending) Mass cancels the obligation to hear Mass on Sundays and holy days.

The Church imposes the obligation to hear Mass “in the Catholic rite,”[3] but a protestantized rite cannot at the same time be characterized as Catholic. Moreover, a “protestantizing” rite exposes the faithful to “considerable spiritual harm,” which is one of the strongest reasons exempting from the Sunday obligation of assistance at Mass. And as it involves danger for our own faith and for that of our dependents, for whom we are responsible before God, we must say that whoever is conscious of this danger, insofar as he is conscious of it, far from satisfying the Church’s precept, rather commits a sin against faith [by attending the N.O.M.].

 

and not be in schism? Make it make sense.

And how can they say this:
 

Quote

 

You also know that it is precisely for this reason that the Church has always forbidden Catholics to participate in non-Catholic Masses, even if they are valid. That is why if a Catholic finds himself in an Orthodox schismatic country and he is unable to find a place of Catholic worship, not only is he dispensed from the obligation to hear Mass, but if he participates in the Mass of the schismatics (valid, once again) he is not excused from committing a sin against the faith. And this is so in virtue of divine natural law, that is to say, even if the ecclesiastical laws have changed for “ecumenical” reasons.

...We do not consider the new rite to be heretical, but rather gravely equivocal, and favoring heresy.

 

claim not to be in schism?

[SicutColumba]

45 minutes ago, Peace said:

Is nixing the TLM going to solve the problem of division? I doubt it. I think you are just trying to nix the TLM, but the underlying issues that cause the division still remain.

If anything this will just rile people up. I can only see this exacerbating the problems of division. 

[Nihil Obstat]

38 minutes ago, Peace said:

 

So I'll restate my original post:

How can a group reject important parts of Vatican 2 and claim not to be in schism? How can they say this:
 

and not be in schism? Make it make sense.

And how can they say this:
 

claim not to be in schism?

I have generally found this conversation not to be very fruitful online. Not in public discussions, anyway.

[Peace]

9 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I have generally found this conversation not to be very fruitful online. Not in public discussions, anyway.

That's cool. I think they are in schism and for good reason, but if anyone wants to try to convince me otherwise they are welcome to do so.

[KnightofChrist]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

I don't see it as a ban. I would say that fundamentally it puts the decision of whether to celebrate the TLM back in the hands of individual bishops, rather than giving parish priests the discretion to celebrate it without permission from their bishops.

It is a ban with a slow burn, slowly choking out the traditional groups. None of the Non-SSPX traditional societies have a single bishop, not one. The local bishop isn't supposed to allow a parish church to be used for the TLM and he cannot grant any more personal parishes that did not exist before today, 7-16-2021, nor can they permit any creation of new traditional groups.

The traditional societies and groups are not allowed to grow. Any child not allowed to grow will die.

[Peace]

6 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

It is a ban with a slow burn, slowly choking out the traditional groups. None of the Non-SSPX traditional societies have a single bishop, not one. The local bishop isn't supposed to allow a parish church to be used for the TLM and he cannot grant any more personal parishes that did not exist before today, 7-16-2021, nor can they permit any creation of new traditional groups.

The traditional societies and groups are not allowed to grow. Any child not allowed to grow will die.

Yeah I think the "slow death" argument has a lot of merit. It seems pretty clear that PF wants to rid the Church of the TLM and that the new regulations are designed to do that.

But I don't think it will be an immediate thing.

I'd say that nixing the TLM is pretty consistent with what the Church laid out in the 60's and 70's though. At least to me it seems that the intention there was to suppress the TLM.

Benedict kind of said that there was never any intention to abrogate the TLM, but that always struck me as a bit of a fiction.

I'm not saying it is a good thing to abrogate the TLM, but I think it is consistent with the institution of the new Mass back in the 60's and 70's. I think its tough to say that they really contemplated that there would be two forms of the western rite in existence at the same time.

Edited July 17, 2021 by Peace

[KnightofChrist]

25 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I have generally found this conversation not to be very fruitful online. Not in public discussions, anyway.

It is fruitless, pointless, old and no one will change their position.

1 minute ago, Peace said:

Yeah I think the "slow death" argument has a lot of merit. It seems pretty clear that PF wants to rid the Church of the TLM and that the new regulations are designed to do that.

But I don't think it will be an immediate thing.

Of course it's not immediate, that would be too cruel and look too cruel for the Pope of Mercy. 

[Peace]

3 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

It is fruitless, pointless, old and no one will change their position.

Why not give it a shot? I've been proven wrong on this site before and admitted as much. If I'm wrong about the SSPX being in schism I'd admit it. It's not something that I have an ideological stance on, to be frank.

 

[KnightofChrist]

Just now, Peace said:

Why not give it a shot? I've been proven wrong on this site before and admitted as much. If I'm wrong about the SSPX being in schism I'd admit it. It's not something that I have an ideological stance on, to be frank.

 

No, thank you. I simply don't have the free time that would be required. Plus, in the past you and I have not really gotten along well. I do not wish to return to that state nor do I wish to increase whatever division may remain between us. Probable that such a discussion between us would lead to a quarrel.