My first SSPX experience

[XIX]

So I went to my first SSPX Mass this morning, and there were a few things that I really liked about it. It was extremely solemn, which is certainly a good thing I think. Everybody was genuflecting for the Blessed Sacrament, which is something you miss in the Novus Ordo. I think my problem really began before they read the homily. They started the announcements there (which struck me as odd, maybe they are supposed to do that during the SSPX?) Either way, I still think that announcements should happen after the communion. But what really got me was that the priest started talking down to "modernists," a term that seemed to include anyone who isn't a fullout Traditionalist, given his context. Then he said there was some very bad news in New Jersey. The Archdiocese of Newark was taking over this church that was designed for the Tridentine mass. Then he said something to the effect of "They said they would keep it as a Tridentine church; however, anybody who knows anything about the Novus Ordo realizes that they were going to switch it. He then called them traitors to Christ--this happened [i]before[/i] anything has even ahppened there yet! He encouraged us all to go down there and protest something that hasn't even happened yet, and was very dissapointed that he couldn't show up himself.

That whole rant happened BEFORE THE GOSPEL READING. I certainly hope for his sake that pre-Gospel announcements are licit in the SSPX. Otherwise, he just decided to go off on some anti-Novus Ordo tangent right in the middle of mass. Yikes...

So he read the Gospel, and the homily was just more of the same. He took really cheap shots at Protestants, Muslims for creating their own God, at Novus Ordo for heading towards Protestantism, "And we all know they are going to end up there." what?!?! His homily was also about how we can't afford to be ashamed of being Catholic, or of being Traditionalist. I find it very alienating that he expected everybody in a Tridentine to be Traditionalist. I sure don't consider myself to be one--I simply try to be an Othodox Catholic. Listen, if the Pope says N.O. is valid, the NO is valid. END OF STORY. :angry:

He made a very good point about praying for the souls in Purgatory though. He said that anybody we helped get out of Purgatory would be very grateful, and they wouldn't forget that. You'll be freinds forever because of it. I thought that was very nice. There were a few other parts of the mass I really liked, too. People were dressed very nicely, I guess I just liked how reverent everybody appeared to be. It's too bad I couldn't stop thinking about the priest's ranting against everything not traditional Catholic. I mean, even the part about the Protestants and the Muslims was way out of line, because his comments were very judgemental of the person, (not just the act) and also uncharitable. I guess it annoyed me a little more because I tend to get shaken by the uber-Traditionalists. I find it very disconcerting when I see that kind of thing. So...it'll be a while before I go back to another Latin Mass of any kind. Unless SSPX changes a lot, I'm not sure I'll ever be back there. Frankly, being attacked like that is very dangerous to my soul, because I have a tendency to take it all to heart.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='XIX' date='Nov 7 2004, 07:53 PM'] So I went to my first SSPX Mass this morning, and there were a few things that I really liked about it. It was extremely solemn, which is certainly a good thing I think. Everybody was genuflecting for the Blessed Sacrament, which is something you miss in the Novus Ordo. I think my problem really began before they read the homily. They started the announcements there (which struck me as odd, maybe they are supposed to do that during the SSPX?) Either way, I still think that announcements should happen after the communion. But what really got me was that the priest started talking down to "modernists," a term that seemed to include anyone who isn't a fullout Traditionalist, given his context. Then he said there was some very bad news in New Jersey. The Archdiocese of Newark was taking over this church that was designed for the Tridentine mass. Then he said something to the effect of "They said they would keep it as a Tridentine church; however, anybody who knows anything about the Novus Ordo realizes that they were going to switch it. He then called them traitors to Christ--this happened [i]before[/i] anything has even ahppened there yet! He encouraged us all to go down there and protest something that hasn't even happened yet, and was very dissapointed that he couldn't show up himself.

That whole rant happened BEFORE THE GOSPEL READING. I certainly hope for his sake that pre-Gospel announcements are licit in the SSPX. Otherwise, he just decided to go off on some anti-Novus Ordo tangent right in the middle of mass. Yikes...

So he read the Gospel, and the homily was just more of the same. He took really cheap shots at Protestants, Muslims for creating their own God, at Novus Ordo for heading towards Protestantism, "And we all know they are going to end up there." what?!?! His homily was also about how we can't afford to be ashamed of being Catholic, or of being Traditionalist. I find it very alienating that he expected everybody in a Tridentine to be Traditionalist. I sure don't consider myself to be one--I simply try to be an Othodox Catholic. Listen, if the Pope says N.O. is valid, the NO is valid. END OF STORY. :angry:

He made a very good point about praying for the souls in Purgatory though. He said that anybody we helped get out of Purgatory would be very grateful, and they wouldn't forget that. You'll be freinds forever because of it. I thought that was very nice. There were a few other parts of the mass I really liked, too. People were dressed very nicely, I guess I just liked how reverent everybody appeared to be. It's too bad I couldn't stop thinking about the priest's ranting against everything not traditional Catholic. I mean, even the part about the Protestants and the Muslims was way out of line, because his comments were very judgemental of the person, (not just the act) and also uncharitable. I guess it annoyed me a little more because I tend to get shaken by the uber-Traditionalists. I find it very disconcerting when I see that kind of thing. So...it'll be a while before I go back to another Latin Mass of any kind. Unless SSPX changes a lot, I'm not sure I'll ever be back there. Frankly, being attacked like that is very dangerous to my soul, because I have a tendency to take it all to heart. [/quote]
SSPX is not Catholic... they are schismatic; possibly heretical. I do not believe their "mass" is valid.

They left the group... read Acts 20:29-30 and meditate on it.

They are no different then Knox, Luther, Calvin, etc... They took away from the Truth, to make their own religion.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[drewmeister2]

Are you certain they are heretical?

[ironmonk]

[quote name='drewmeister2' date='Nov 7 2004, 08:17 PM'] Are you certain they are heretical? [/quote]
[b]possibly [/b]

[ironmonk]

[url="http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/sspx.asp"]http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/sspx.asp[/url]


Decree of Excommunication
[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1222"]http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1222[/url]

Did the Pope Intend to Bind His Successors from Changing the Tridentine Mass?
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/QUOPIUS.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/QUOPIUS.htm[/url]


> Subject: "Licit," "Legal," "Unlawful"
>
> Dear Father Mateo,
>
> In a discussion of Masses conducted by the Society of St.
> Piux X without permission of the local ordinary, the
> question has been raised as to whether these are "illegal"
> under Church law.
>
> My understanding is that the Church in its documents uses
> the term "illicit" to designate that which is unlawful (as
> opposed to invalid), and that Catholics ought to avoid
> whatever is not licit. My correspondent replies that, since
> the bishop did not say it is *illegal* for him to attend the
> SSPX Masses, it is only a minor matter that they are
> illicit, and he may in good conscience attend.
>
> I know you have addressed the larger question of the SSPX
> here before, but can you clarify this issue of "illegal" vs.
> "illicit? Is there a distinction in Church law?
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> ... I intend to live forever. So far, so good.

Dear Terrye,

Canon Law in its Latin original uses only the terms "licitus"
(licit, legal) and "illicitus" (illicit, illegal, unlawful).
There is no distinction made in the English translation between,
"licit" and "legal" or between "illicit" and "illegal".

Your correspondent, in attending an illicit and schismatic
(although valid) Mass, is disobedient to this bishop and is in
violation of canons 209 and 212, 1 of the Code of Canon Law:

Canon 290 - 1. "Christ's faithful are bound to preserve their
Communion with the Church at all times, even in their external
actions."

Canon 209 - 2. "They are to carry out with great diligence their
responsibilities towards both the universal Church and the
particular Church (diocese, parish) to which by law they belong."

Canon 212 - 1. "Christ's faithful conscious of their own
responsibility, are bound to show Christian obedience to what the
sacred Pastors, who represent Christ, declare as teachers of the
Faith and prescribe as rulers of the Church."

Sincerely in Christ,
Father Mateo








XIX,
You might want to go to confession for attending the SSPX.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[God Conquers]

Ya, you shouldn't be taking communion or attending services by schismatic groups....

If you want to go to a latin service, most big dioceses have a tridentine right parish.

[XIX]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Nov 7 2004, 06:11 PM'] SSPX is not Catholic... they are schismatic; possibly heretical. I do not believe their "mass" is valid.

They left the group... read Acts 20:29-30 and meditate on it.

They are no different then Knox, Luther, Calvin, etc... They took away from the Truth, to make their own religion.

God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote]
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!

Everybody whom I trust--I know a few very orthodox Catholics--told me that SSPX services were at least valid, that they weren't totally valid, but at least partially. However, even one of them said that he would go to another Mass that day, not feeing comfortable fulfilling his Sunday obligation at SSPX.

Yikes, I am so sorry if I have done anything to disrespect the Most Holy Eucharist.


EDIT: Thank God for 10 pm Mass at my school!

Edited November 7, 2004 by XIX

[XIX]

Okay this is what I got:

[url="http://www.unavoce.org/Protocol539-99.htm"]http://www.unavoce.org/Protocol539-99.htm[/url]

PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO "ECCLESIA DEI"
N. 539/99 Rome, 28 September 1999


Mr. Joseph E. Rebbert
10024 Piebald Lane
Dewey
Arizona 86327
U.S.A.


Dear Mr. Rebbert,
We wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter to His Eminence Cardinal
Ratzinger. It has been transmitted to this Pontifical Commission as dealing
with matters that come within our particular competence.
With regard to the schismatic Society of St. Pius X we can say the
following:
1. The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained,
but suspended, that is prohibited from exercising their priestly functions
because they are not properly incardinated in a diocese or religious
institute in full communion with the Holy See (cf. canon 265) and also
because those ordained after the schismatic episcopal ordinations were
ordained by an excommunicated bishop. They are also excommunicated if
they adhere to the schism (cf. Ecclesia Del, #5, c). While up to now the
Holy See has not defined what this .adherence consists in, one could point
to a wholesale condemnation of the Church since the Second Vatican Council
and a refusal to be in communion with it (cf. canon 751 on the definition
of schism). Further, it is likely that these priests, after eleven years
in a society whose head is now an excommunicated bishop, effectively adhere
to the schism. . .
2. Concretely this means that the [b]Masses offered by the priests of
the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to Canon
Law. [/b]The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, however, require that the
priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since
that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid. It
remains true, however, that, if the faithful are genuinely ignorant that the
priests of the Society of St. Pius X do not have the proper faculty to
absolve, the Church supplied these faculties so that the sacrament was valid
(cf. Code of Canon Law c. 144).
3. The situation of the faithful attending chapels of the Society of
St. Pius X is more complicated. They may attend Mass there primarily
because of an attraction to the earlier form of the Roman Rite in which
case they incur no penalty. The difficulty is that the longer they
frequent these chapels, the more likely it is that they will slowly imbibe
the schismatic mentality which stands in judgement of the Church and
refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff and communion with the members of
the Church subject to him. If that becomes the case, then it would seem
that they adhere to the schism and are consequently excommunicated.
For these reasons this Pontifical Commission cannot encourage you
to frequent the chapel of the Society of St. Pius X. On the other hand it
would seem that you are among those who attend Mass in chapels
of the Society of St. Pius X because of the
reverence and devotion which they find there, because of their
attraction to the traditional Latin Mass and not because
they refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff or reject communion with the
members of the Church subject to him. At the same time it must be admitted
that - this is an irregular situation, even if the circumstances which have
caused it have come about through no fault of your own, and it should be
remedied as soon as circumstances permit.
With prayerful best wishes I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Msgr. Camille Perl
Secretary

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

You didn't know they were in schism before you went?

[Dave]

The Masses of the SSPX are valid but illicit. And there's some debate as to whether or not their Masses would fulfill a Catholic's Sunday obligation. If it was an emergency or totally impossible to get to an illicit Mass, it would fulfill it, I believe. But if it's not an emergency, then it might not fulfill your obligation.

[drewmeister2]

This is interesting, found this EWTN: [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX2.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX2.HTM[/url]

STATUS OF THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X
Msgr Camille Perl
Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following letter was sent to an Australian man in response to a letter he addressed to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. He provided it to EWTN for use as we saw fit. The author is the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission responsible for the implementation of Ecclesia Dei, the Holy Father's letter announcing the excommunication of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and encouraging broader implementation of the Indult allowing the celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei

N. 343/98
Rome, 27 October 1998




Dear ______,

We wish to acknowledge receipt of your document, Statements and Allegations Made By Some Australian Members of The Society of St. Pius X, which you sent to His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger for evaluation. It has been transmitted to this Pontifical Commission as dealing with matters that come within our particular competence.

First of all, we thank God that you have been able to be Sufficiently objective about the claims of the Society of St. Pius X to leave it and return to full communion with the Church. We recognize that this has been a long journey for you and your wife and we trust that all that you have experienced has helped you to be a better Catholic, aware of the wounds of the Church in its members on earth, but even more conscious of its indefectibility.

You will have noted that we are that very Pontifical Commission referred to in Father Jean Violette's letter to you of 21 January 1995 as made up of "liberals, modernists who have infiltrated the positions of authority in the Church and who are using their authority to do away with Tradition..." We trust that you will now understand that this is not a fair description of us or of our often difficult and delicate work.

We will now attempt to address ourselves to your questions in the order in which you have raised them.

a. The Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church. In an Apostolic Letter which he issued motu proprio (on his own initiative) he declared that

Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. (Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382).

Those mentioned above who are still living and have not asked pardon from the Church for the ill which they have caused are still under the censure of excommunication.

b. While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis, that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265). In the strict sense there are no "lay members" of the Society of St. Pius X, only those who frequent their Masses and receive the sacraments from them.

While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 that the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass, and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith.

It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.

b. Thus far the Church has not officially declared what Constitutes "formal adherence to the schism" inaugurated by the late Archbishop Lefebvre (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), but the Code of Canon Law defines schism as "refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (canon 751). The above citation together with the other documentation which you have included in your dossier and your own exchange of correspondence with Father Violette clearly indicate the extent to which many in authority in the Society of St. Pius X corroborate that definition.

c. It may still be difficult to characterize the entire Society of St. Pius X, but the documentation which you have submitted witnesses to a consistent condemnation of the new Mass, the Pope and anyone who disagrees with the authorities of the Society in the smallest degree. Such behaviour is not consistent with the practice of the Catholic faith.

d. We reiterate what we stated above: "The Pope is the Supreme legislator in the Church." Communion with him is a fundamental, non-negotiable hallmark of Catholicism which is not determined by those who set themselves up to judge him, but by the Pope himself (cf. Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium #22-25).

e. The question of the doctrine held by the late Father Leonard Feeney is a complex one. He died in full communion with the Church and many of his former disciples are also now in full communion while some are not. We do not judge it opportune to enter into this question.

f. You want to know how authoritative our responses are. We Must indicate to you that this letter accurately reflects the practice and pastoral solicitude of this Pontifical Commission, but it is not an official declaration of the Holy See. Those declarations are fundamentally limited to Quattuor abhinc annos of 3 October 1984 and Ecclesia Dei of 2 July 1988, both of which were published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. The Holy Father does not ordinarily make detailed statements on very specific questions such as those which you have submitted. He entrusts such responses to the variou dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which have competence in particular areas. With regard to the matters which you have brought up, the competence belongs to this Pontifical Commission.

g. The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts rules primarily on the interpretation of the law. Any more Authoritative response to your questions than the one we have given would be more likely to come from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The fact that that Congregation has transmitted your dossier to us indicates that at this time our response should be sufficient. Statements of dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which touch on faith and morals are not considered infallible, but should be taken as norms of moral certitude.

i. Our response to your questions may be made public.



With prayerful best wishes I remain,
Sincerely yours in Christ,

(signed) Msgr. Camille Perl
Secretary



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
www.ewtn.com

[CatholicCrusader]

This is absurd.... please read this, XIX... (and ironmonk, too)

the SSPX IS NOT IN SCHISM. If they were in schism, then why are their marriages and Confessions invalid? The Church recognizes the marriages of the Eastern Orthodox schismatics, and even all the heretical religions, as well. The reason they are not valid is that they are not in schism. They have their faculties suspended. If they were not a part of the Church, then their marriages would be valid, just as the Eastern schismatics et al. are.

As far as it being valid. Yes, the Mass is valid. What is necessary for any Sacrament? You need: a valid minister (e.g., for Baptism: anyone, for Mass: a validly ordained Priest), correct form (words: they are the same as the Church used for 1900 + years--valid), matter (bread and wine--valid, at least as far as we know--we have no reason to believe they would not have the correct form any more than we should at any Catholic parish), and intention. The intention required is to "do as the Church does to confer the Sacrament". In this case, following the rubrics of 1962, they do as the Church allows (the follow the exact same as the FFSP and other Traditional Mass Orders that are not suspended).

Now, how do we know the Priest is validly ordained? Again, what are the four necessities? Minster, form, matter, intention. They have a validly ordained Bishop (ordained illicitly, that is, without permission of the Pope, but validly, by Archbishop Lefebvre) who ordains the Priest. OK, that is valid minister. Form: they say the same words as the 1962 missal: valid. Matter: they have a Confirmed male Catholic: valid. Intention: there is no reason to doubt that their Bishop has the intention to ordain a Priest any more than we would any other Catholic Bishop has the correct intention: valid.

So, we see that the Mass is most certainly a VALID one. What does that mean? That means that the Eucharist IS Consecrated. Therefore, if you go to the Mass, you SHOULD receive Communion as you would at any other Catholic parish. Now, that does not mean it is per se licit. A Mass is illicit if it breaks with one of the regulations (rubrcis) of the Mass. Today at the Novus Ordo, you would have such things as: unnecessary Extraordinary Minsters, girl altar boys outside of a necessity, liturgical dance, changing the words of a part of the Mass, ad lib, etc., etc. That does not invalidate the Mass (unless the intention is not there to do as the Church teaches). Therefore, although all their Masses are illicit insofar as they are suspended Priests celebrating public Masses, that is no different than most Masses said today. Almost every Mass I've ever been to (outside of my FSSP parish) is invalid. There is alway an ad lib, an overuse of Liturgical 'ministers', etc., etc. So, you do not commit a sin to go to an illicit Mass.

Basically, you can attend an SSPX Mass if you have no other Traditional Latin Mass to go to. You can go if you have a "moral impossibility" to go to a Novus Ordo Mass (such as liturgical abuse). Now, the question is: does it fulfill your Sunday obligation to go to an illicit Mass--yes it does. In fact, it fulfills your Sunday obligation if you go to an invalid Mass. If you come to Mass and then the Priest, for example, skips the Consecration of the wine, then it is an invalid Mass, but you are not under and obligation to go to another Mass for the day, per the Church.

Basically, there is nothing wrong with going to SSPX if you can't get to a Traditional Mass. The Mass is valid; you should receive Communion just as you would at another parish; and you certainly commit no sin at all in going to the SSPX under the condition that there is no other Traditional Mass. That is what has been put forth from the Ecclesia Dei Commission and Cardinal Hoyos.

[toledo_jesus]

the SSPX is valid, yes, but illicit. If there is no alternative then yeah you can go. I wouldn't suggest receiving Communion, but as I said, it is valid.

[hyperdulia again]

SSPX Mass is illicit. It is however valid.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote]So I went to my first SSPX Mass this morning, and there were a few things that I really liked about it.  It was extremely solemn, which is certainly a good thing I think.  Everybody was genuflecting for the Blessed Sacrament, which is something you miss in the Novus Ordo.[/quote]

Those are the typical qualities of a Traditional Mass.

[quote]my problem really began before they read the homily.  They started the announcements there (which struck me as odd, maybe they are supposed to do that during the SSPX?) [/quote]

That is actually the proper way to do it at any Mass: Novus Ordo or Traditional or Eastern (as far as I know for Eastern Rites)

[quote] Either way, I still think that announcements should happen after the communion.[/quote]

That doesn't make sense because it interrupts the entire Mass of the Faithful. The Sermon is the perfect time for announcements and anything not a part of the Mass, since it is placed at the break between the Mass of the Catechumens and the Mass of the Faithful, a good "stopping point" as it were.


[quote]But what really got me was that the priest started talking down to "modernists," a term that seemed to include anyone who isn't a fullout Traditionalist, given his context. [/quote]

I don't think any Pope has ever said it's wrong to 'talk down to' modernists. That is what the great Popes of last century did. Moreover, if you mean "who isn't a fullout Traditionalist" as "anyone who doesn't believe all the Church teaches", then good. Either way, good, but especially if you mean as I described.


[quote]That whole rant happened BEFORE THE GOSPEL READING.  I certainly hope for his sake that pre-Gospel announcements are licit in the SSPX.  Otherwise, he just decided to go off on some anti-Novus Ordo tangent right in the middle of mass.  Yikes...[/quote]

Actually, that was not before the Gospel. He already read the Gospel as a part of the Mass, but it is typical in the United States and elsewhere nowadays to also read the epistle and Gospel for those who do not have missals. Nothing he says in English is a part of the Mass. That is just to help people who don't have missals get a touch of the Gospel so they can understand what the Sermon will be about, if it touches on the Gospel. Once the Priest comes to the pulpit (he should have taken off his maniple--which looks like a small stole for his left arm--first), what he says in the vernacular is all the Sermon. None of that is an actual part of the Mass itself.

[quote]So he read the Gospel, and the homily was just more of the same.  He took really cheap shots at Protestants, Muslims for creating their own God, at Novus Ordo for heading towards Protestantism, "And we all know they are going to end up there."    what?!?![/quote]

Why is it wrong that he "took shots" at moslems and protestants for creating their own God? It is true. Moslems don't believe in the Holy Trinity. They believe in their created god, allah. Protestants make out Christ to be a hippie Who doesn't believe in works but only some wishy-washy protestant mumbo-jumbo (you know how they are), a perversion and hence a creation of their own false god.

[quote]His homily was also about how we can't afford to be ashamed of being Catholic, or of being Traditionalist.  I find it very alienating that he expected everybody in a Tridentine to be Traditionalist. [/quote]

Traditionalist means: believes what the Church authentically teaches. If you think the Priest shouldn't say not to be ashamed to be Catholic (and hence a Traditionalist, they are synonyms), then I don't know how Catholic you are yourself.

[quote]I sure don't consider myself to be one--I simply try to be an Othodox Catholic.  Listen, if the Pope says N.O. is valid, the NO is valid.  END OF STORY.  :angry: [/quote]

The idea that if the Pope says it, it must be true is an anti-intellectual and ridiculous way to look at things. I don't think the NO is invalid, but it's not valid merely because Pope John Paul II says it is. That makes no sense. What if the Pope says the Dolphins are the best football team in the NFL? Does that mean it's true? What if he says: it will rain tomorrow? Does that make it true? No. He is only infallible in matters of faith and morals and only when speaking ex Cathedra. John Paul II has never spoken infallibly.

[quote]He made a very good point about praying for the souls in Purgatory though.  He said that anybody we helped get out of Purgatory would be very grateful, and they wouldn't forget that.  You'll be freinds forever because of it.  I thought that was very nice.      There were a few other parts of the mass I really liked, too.  People were dressed very nicely, I guess I just liked how reverent everybody appeared to be. [/quote]

Again, that's typical Traditional Masses.

[quote] It's too bad I couldn't stop thinking about the priest's ranting against everything not traditional Catholic. [/quote]

That does not addor subtract from the Mass itself; although, it would be nice to be able to get to a Traditional Mass such as the Fraternity of St. Peter or the Institute of Christ the King or St. John Cantius or the Society of St. John, etc., since they Orders are not suspended.

[quote]I mean, even the part about the Protestants and the Muslims was way out of line, because his comments were very judgemental of the person, (not just the act) and also uncharitable.[/quote]

To say: a person who is a protestant can't go to Heaven is not judgmental of the person. Judging the person is saying: this person did such and such BECAUSE.... The judging of a person comes in when you jude that person's INTENTION. No one can know another's intention unless the person tell him. And saying that non-Catholics can't be saved isn't UNcharitable, it is the ONLY charitable thing to do. If you pretend everyone can go to Heaven and every is good, you do so much more harm than good. Since they do have to be Catholic, you give them a false hope and no reason to convert.

[quote]So...it'll be a while before I go back to another Latin Mass of any kind.  Unless SSPX changes a lot, I'm not sure I'll ever be back there.[/quote]

Don't take offense, but that is simply a stupid mindset. I could say: since the local Novus Ordo Priest here preached such and such a heresy from the pulpit, I'm never going to go back to Novus Ordo, at least for a long time. And what you are saying is even worse because you say: a suspended Priest said something that made me made (which may have not been wrong in the first place), and because of that I am not going back to a Traditional Mass, whether suspended or not, for a long time, especially since your problems were not with the Mass but with the sermon. That simply makes no sense at all.

Edited November 8, 2004 by CatholicCrusader