The FSSP and the SSPX

[dspen2005]

[Cam42]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Mar 9 2006, 12:19 AM']whats with all the unconstructive criticism?

how am i wrong?

People have told me that FSSP priests they have confessed to "were total trads"

in fact SSPX and FSSP priests prayed the rosary together to stop a rap group from performing inside of a FSSP Church.

Many trads attend FSSP chapels.
im not saying all FSSP priests are trads, but some are.

you need to be more charitable.
[right][snapback]907053[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Hey Sam,

I am tired of all this incessant claiming of "uncharitable." I have been charitable all the way through. I have patiently shown you your errors on SEVERAL threads. The lack of charity is not on my part, but rather on yours, for OBSTINANTLY refusing to see the other side of the point.

The reason that I made the statement about one liners (which is very uncharitable, on your part, by the way) is that you are contradicting yourself. Charity demands that I tell you when you are wrong.

It is this misguided MODERN notion of charity that we automatically need to be nice. NICE DOES NOT EQUAL CHARITY. Nice is enabling more than it is being charitable. Charity is telling the truth to those who are stuck in a rut of error.

Perhaps I am a bit sarcastic, but notice that I get sarcastic when all other means have been exhausted. Why? Perhaps that is a mode that you will understand. As it is....you need to get over this incorrect view of charity. You can't simply call out uncharity like a "get out of jail free card."

You, Sam, NEED to start taking a position and making a point. If you cannot or if you will not, you need to stop posting. One liners and quotation/citation without explaination allows for NOTHING. Also, "spoon feed" is not authentic. Notice that the vast majority of people who post here, with the exception of a few don't give one liners.

When you do that you are expecting us to all of a sudden have and ephiphany......you may deny it, but that exactly what you expect.

Here is a hint for ya.....WE ARE NOT GOING TO CONVERT TO THE SSPX SCHISM.

Honestly, do you expect us to say, "Oh my gosh, the Church has fallen into error, we better come to the SSPX?"

Seriously? It will never happen. The Church is protected from that. And the Church has survived much larger schisms than the minute and inconsequential ramblings of a retired Archbishop who was quite simply "bitter."

So, Sam....don't come to me with "uncharitable." You don't know the meaning of the word and you don't know the etimology. Christ wasn't always NICE, but He was always charitable. The truth of Tradition will speak for itself, not this contradictiory notion that you and your phishys promote.

N.B. I would have probably joined that rosary too.....that speaks nothing to anything other than taste or lack thereof.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Mar 7 2006, 06:45 PM']I should add that I have been unable to find a document suppressing the traditional Mass. Because of this fact, the Mass can be offered by any priest. Cam seems to be unaware of this fact or seems to deny it outright. If there is any disagreement on this point, I would be interested in reading an authoritative document suppressing the traditional Mass. It is noteworthy at least that a small convocation of Cardinals was called by John Paul II in 1986 to answer questions regarding the use of the traditional Mass. The commission, comprised of Cardinals Ratzinger, Mayer, Oddi, Stickler, Casaroli, Gantin, Innocenti, Palaz-zini, and Tomko, determined that the traditional Mass had never been forbidden, that priests are not obliged to offer the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] and that bishops cannot forbid or place restrictions on the celebration of the traditional rite of Mass whether in public or in private. Though their findings be not authoritative in themselves, they are certainly an illustration of the mens ecclesiae in this matter. In addition, eight of the nine Cardinals favoured an official document making their findings clear and public. These facts have been affirmed by Cardinal Stickler, one of the Cardinals called for the commission.
[right][snapback]905709[/snapback][/right][/quote]

Wanna show me where I have EVER said that the Tridentine Mass has been suppressed? I have never said that. I affectionately support and assist at the Tridentine Mass. What I have said, is that the faithful have a right to the Sacraments, however we do not have a right to the Sacraments of our choosing. We must be obedient to will of the Church. The indult is precisely that, an indult. It is not suppressed, but it is not the Missa Normativa.

The Church has reformed the Liturgy. That is not unheard of. That has happened several times in the history of the Church. We have a right to the Missa Normativa promulgated by the Church. That is the Mass of Paul VI. The previous Holy Father made a very liberal decision in allowing, for the sake of unity and genuine affection; the previous Mass.

This is supported by the 1984 document [url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/11/DocumentIndex/395"]Quattuor Abhinc Annos[/url]. Specifically;

[quote name='Quattor Abhinc Annos #2']The celebration of Mass in question must take place exclusively for the benefit of those who petition it; the celebration must be in a church or oratory designated by the diocesan bishop (but not in parish churches, unless, in extraordinary instances, the bishop allows this); the celebration may take place only on those days and in those circumstances approved by the bishop, whether for an individual instance or as a regular occurrence.[/quote]

Now, with all that being said, how about representing my position accurately? I would appreciate it. It is bad form in a debate to out right lie about a person's position, regardless of the "type" of English used. Capice?

[Amator Veritatis]

If it be poor form to misrepresent the position of another, perhaps you would do well to read carefully the words I have written. I did not assert that you had denied the fact that the traditional Mass had been suppressed. My statement was that you have seemed to ignore or perhaps deny the following statement: "Because of this fact, the Mass can be offered by any priest." Even if you have not denied this directly, my statement is and was that you seem to be unaware of it or even to deny it outright, though, because I have qualified the statement, it is implicit that I have not necessarily read a statement by you denying it outright. If I had known you to deny it outright, I would have stated so exclusively and without qualification. Because I have not read all of your writings, I am unable to state that you have not denied it outright, and because of the other statements you have made on this issue illustrate your tendency to such conclusions, I made it clear that such a position was at least a possibility. In addition, I would be careful in accusing others of telling a lie, at least if you accept the definition of a lie as posed by St. Thomas of Aquin, i.e., a statement at variance with the mind. Because you are incapable of knowing the mind of another, you would be incapable of convincing him of sin at least as regards lying. If you wish to present my claims as erroneous or false, I would invite you to do so, should they be such, though, as I have stated, they were certainly not erroneous at least in this case. I must retire from the thread and Phatmass for the remainder of the day, for it is my mother's birthday, and I have obligations in that regard. I hope to be able to continue this discussion and others in the near future.

Edited March 9, 2006 by Amator Veritatis

[Era Might]

[quote]priests are not obliged to offer the Novus Ordo Missae and that bishops cannot forbid or place restrictions on the celebration of the traditional rite of Mass whether in public or in private.[/quote]

This is demonstrably false, on two counts.

First, if this was indeed the mind of Pope John Paul II, he would never have issued an "Ecclesia Dei" indult. An indult is, by definition, an exception to the law. John Paul left the administration of this indult to the local Bishop. There was no "right" to the usage of the Tridentine Missal. It was granted as an exception, subject to the will of the local ordinary.

The conclusions of a commission do not necessarily indicate the "mens ecclesiae". Pope Paul VI established a commission to study artificial birth control, and it recommended that the Church approve contraceptive use. Of course, Paul decided against their conclusions, and later issued "Humanae Vitae".

Second, Pope Paul VI stated explicitly that the promulgation of his Missal was "in place of" the Tridentine Missal, and not alongside of it:

[quote]We must attach to this refusal to respect the liturgical norms laid down a special grievousness in that it introduces division where Christ's love has gathered us together in unity, namely, into the liturgy and the eucharistic sacrifice. For our part, in the name of tradition, we beseech all of our children to celebrate the rites of the restored liturgy with dignity and fervent devotion. [b]Use of the old Ordo Missae is in no way left to the choice of priests or people[/b]. The Instruction of 14 June 1971 provided the celebration of Mass according to the former rite would be permitted, by faculty from the Ordinary, only for aged or sick priests offering the sacrifice without a congregation. [b]The new Ordo Missae was promulgated in place of the old[/b] after careful deliberation and to carry out the directives of Vatican Council II. For a like reason, our predecessor St. Pius V, after the Council of Trent, commanded the use of the Roman Missal revised by his authority.

--Pope Paul VI, Consistory allocution of May 24th, 1976[/quote]

There is no document that I'm aware of which was written to "suppress" the Tridentine Missal. No such document was necessary. It was always understood that the Missal of Paul VI replaced the Tridentine Missal.

Edited March 9, 2006 by Era Might

[Cam42]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis']I did not assert that you had denied the fact that the traditional Mass had been suppressed. My statement was that you have seemed to ignore or perhaps deny the following statement: "Because of this fact, the Mass can be offered by any priest." Even if you have not denied this directly, my statement is and was that you seem to be unaware of it or even to deny it outright, though, because I have qualified the statement, it is implicit that I have not necessarily read a statement by you denying it outright.[/quote]

Nope, don't buy the backtracking....sorry.

You said:

[quote]Cam seems to be unaware of this fact or seems to deny it [suppression of the Tridentine Mass] outright.[/quote]

I am not letting you off the hook. If you are going to change your position fine, but don't make it seem that your position is consistent, because it is not.

Again, show me where I have alluded to or explicitly stated that a priest cannot celebrate the Tridentine Mass? I am fully aware of it and I fully support it.

And to support Era:
[quote]There is no document that I'm aware of which stated "the Tridentine Missal is suppressed". No such document was necessary. It was always evident that the Missal of Paul VI was issued to replace the Tridentine Missal.[/quote]

That is exactly right. Here is part of the decree:

[quote name='Second Editio Typica' date=' 1975']This Congregation for Divine Worship, at the mandate of the Pope, now promulgates and declares to be the editio typica this new edition of the Roman Missal prepared in accord with the decrees of Vatican Council II.

As to use of the new Missal, the Latin edition may be put into use as soon as it is published, with the necessary adjustments of saints' days until the revised calendar is put into definitive effect.[/quote]

[quote name='Missale Romanum']The Missale Romanum was promulgated in 1570 by our predecessor St. Pius V, in execution of the decree of the Council of Trent. It has been recognized by all as one of the many admirable results that the Council achieved for the benefit of the entire Church of Christ. For four centuries it provided Latin-rite priests with norms for the celebration of the eucharistic sacrifice; moreover messengers of the Gospel brought this Missal to almost the entire world. Innumerable holy men and women nurtured their spiritual life on its readings from Scripture and on its prayer texts. In large part these prayer texts owed their arrangement to St. Gregory the Great......

No one should think, however, that this revision of the Roman Missal has come out of nowhere. The progress in liturgical studies during the last four centuries has certainly prepared the way. Just after the Council of Trent, the study of "ancient manuscripts in the Vatican library and elsewhere," as St. Pius V attests in the Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum, helped greatly in the correction of the Roman Missal. Since then, however, other ancient sources have been discovered and published and liturgical formularies of the Eastern Church have been studied. Accordingly many have had the desire for these doctrinal and spiritual riches not to be stored away in the dark, but to be put into use for the enlightenment of the mind of Christians and for the nurturing of their spirit......

After what we have presented concerning the new Roman Missal, we wish in conclusion to insist on one point in particular and to make it have its effect. When he promulgated the editio princeps of the Roman Missal, our predecessor St. Pius V offered it to the people of Christ as the instrument of liturgical unity and the expression of a pure and reverent worship in the Church. Even though, in virtue of the decree of the Second Vatican Council, we have accepted into the new Roman Missal lawful variations and adaptations, our own expectation in no way differs from that of our predecessor. It is that the faithful will receive the new Missal as a help toward witnessing and strengthening their unity with one another; that through the new Missal one and the same prayer in a great diversity of languages will ascend, more fragrant than any incense, to our heavenly Father through our High Priest, Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit.[/quote]
[i]cf. See apostolic const. Quo primum, July 14, 1570.
SC, art. 38-40.[/i]

[Amator Veritatis]

I have a few moments. A candid observer can see that I have not backtracked. If you would like to illustrate how I have changed my position, please do, but I have not done so. As I said, your comments in whole illustrate various positions. Your opinion regarding the traditional Mass is a restricted one, to say the least. This fact is precisely the reason I stated that you seem to believe that the traditional Mass cannot be offered by all priests. As my points were clear the first and second time, I did not state that you necessarily hold this view but that you seem to hold it. Regardless, your previous comments offered no real evidence or arguments to the point. An assertion is not itself an argument, as much as many wish it were. In any event, as I said previously, I will be engaged for most of the remainder of the day and hope to contribute more ere long.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Mar 9 2006, 04:02 PM']I have a few moments. A candid observer can see that I have not backtracked. If you would like to illustrate how I have changed my position, please do, but I have not done so. As I said, your comments in whole illustrate various positions. Your opinion regarding the traditional Mass is a restricted one, to say the least. This fact is precisely the reason I stated that you seem to believe that the traditional Mass cannot be offered by all priests. As my points were clear the first and second time, I did not state that you necessarily hold this view but that you seem to hold it. Regardless, your previous comments offered no real evidence or arguments to the point. An assertion is not itself an argument, as much as many wish it were. In any event, as I said previously, I will be engaged for most of the remainder of the day and hope to contribute more ere long.
[right][snapback]907392[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I just showed you where your position changed. So, don't even.....My position is very consistent AV. It is very consistent. I have never deviated from that of the Tridentine nor have I deviated from that of the Missa Normativa.

Would you please quote for me where I have said that the Tridentine Mass cannot be celebrated by all priests. If you cannot you are misrepresenting my position. But as it is, I will just flat out say it, YOU ARE MISREPRESENTING MY POSITION.

My previous comments speak to my positioning. An assertation is not an argument true, but I am not making an arugment, AV. What I am doing is supporting my position which has been made very clear in the past. It is not incumbent upon me to restate my position for you. It is incumbnent on you to know my position, if you are going to criticize it.

So, again, don't "assert" that I am ignoring something when I am not. Show me where I have said that the Tridentine cannot be celebrated by all priests. I daresay, you won't be able to do it.

Incidentally, why say "ere?" Why don't you simply say "before." It is easier for most to understand.....

[Donna]

Er, to backtrack about the N.O. Hosts being used at the indult, one may not be aware of this practice. It doesn't seem farfetched that people would go to the Latin Mass for that Mass, that consecration in which "pro-multis" and "mysterium fide" is present....to be followed with receiving one of those Lain Mass consecrated Hosts.

People sure do have a right to the above especially after the centuries this Mass was fostered. No document nor practice can erase that fact.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Donna' date='Mar 13 2006, 01:29 AM']Er, to backtrack about the N.O. Hosts being used at the indult, one may not be aware of this practice. It doesn't seem farfetched that people would go to the Latin Mass for that Mass, that consecration in which "pro-multis" and "mysterium fide" is present....to be followed with receiving one of those Lain Mass consecrated Hosts.

People sure do have a right to the above especially after the centuries this Mass was fostered. No document nor practice can erase that fact.
[right][snapback]909923[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Whaaaa....? That makes no sense. Would you please elaborate?

[Donna]

Who me, make no sense?

I'd be happy to elaborate, but don't know what you're not understanding (besides apparently the whole post!)

[Era Might]

[quote name='Donna' date='Mar 13 2006, 01:29 AM']Er, to backtrack about the N.O. Hosts being used at the indult, one may not be aware of this practice. It doesn't seem farfetched that people would go to the Latin Mass for that Mass, that consecration in which "pro-multis" and "mysterium fide" is present....to be followed with receiving one of those Lain Mass consecrated Hosts.

People sure do have a right to the above especially after the centuries this Mass was fostered. No document nor practice can erase that fact.
[right][snapback]909923[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The Mysterium Fidei is present in the Missal of Paul VI. It is simply said after the words of institution, rather than during.

The Eucharist is the Eucharist. While the Church does prefer that we receive a host consecrated at the Mass we attend (this is true of any Mass), because it is a more fitting symbol, there is nothing inherently wrong with receiving the Holy Eucharist from the tabernacle. If the reason someone eschews previously-consecrated hosts is because they have doubts about the validity of the Missal of Paul VI, or doubt its doctrinal exactitude, then this is absolutely unacceptable.

[Donna]

I wonder. Maybe celebrities like Mel Gibson and Michael Davies (RIP) can get away with what certainly looks like avoiding a Mass situation where the consecrated Hosts aren't from the Latin Mass.

I mean no disrespect to them and don't know if this is certainly the case. Eh, this then might clarify something for Cam: that it seems logical that anyone going to the Latin Mass - wherever that may be - would think and expect as a matter of course that the Host received would be from THAT Mass, not from another, and especially not from a different (so to speak) rite. So because of this, people might not be aware of a practice of using consecrated Hosts from the New Mass. I'm sure ppl going to the new Mass would expect [i]those [/i]Hosts to be consecrated in the New Order Missal, hello!

Era, as you point out, the Missal of Paul VI, the Latin is the standard, the...can't find the word, official, or whatever. Fine, but if it's not translated as such, mysterium fide and etc; then it's not. "The mystery of faith: Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again" is not "the" mysterium fide referring to the Precious Blood as salvific [i]sacramentally.[/i]

The Precious Blood being salvific sacramentally is the nutshell of the faith. It literally is the mysterium fide.

What to do with the people who cannot get past Trent, and their baltimore chatechism and Latin Mass they grew up with...I know many, working around seniors for a decade or so. It don't even take Quo Primum ("quo what, dearie?") to stoke them fires!

Edited March 14, 2006 by Donna

[Era Might]

[quote name='Donna' date='Mar 14 2006, 03:25 AM']The Precious Blood being salvific sacramentally is the nutshell of the faith. It literally is the mysterium fide.

What to do with the people who cannot get past Trent, and their baltimore chatechism and Latin Mass they grew up with...I know many, working around seniors for a decade or so. It don't even take Quo Primum ("quo what, dearie?") to stoke them fires!
[right][snapback]911004[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There is no "Mysterium Fidei" in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, at all. Of course, that is no reason to question it, anymore than we should question the Liturgy of Paul VI.

What to do with them...I'm not sure. I'll grant that it is a pastoral problem. I guess there are no easy answers.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Donna' date='Mar 13 2006, 01:29 AM']Er, to backtrack about the N.O. Hosts being used at the indult, one may not be aware of this practice. It doesn't seem farfetched that people would go to the Latin Mass for that Mass, that consecration in which "pro-multis" and "mysterium fide" is present....to be followed with receiving one of those Lain Mass consecrated Hosts.

People sure do have a right to the above especially after the centuries this Mass was fostered. No document nor practice can erase that fact.
[right][snapback]909923[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Again, I have spoken to the cosecratory words. In both the indult and the Missa Normativa, the words of consecration are the same.

(Indult)
For the Host:
[b]HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM.[/b]

For the Wine:
[b]HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI:[/b]
MYSTERIUM FIDEI:
QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM.


(Missa Normativa)
For the Host:
[b]HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM[/b]

For the Wine:
[b]HIC EST ENIM CALIX SÁNGUINIS MEI
NOVI ET AETÉRNI TESTAMÉNTI,[/b]
QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDÉTUR
IN REMISSIÓNEM PECCATÓRUM.
HOC FÁCITE IN MEAM COMMEMORATIÓNEM.
MYSTERIUM FIDEI

There is no substantial change in the wording. There is change in the order of the wording, however it is all included. AND the acutal words of consecration are bolded. They are IDENTICAL.

People do not have a right to attend whatever Mass they want. They have a right to the Sacraments, not a right to the Sacrament of their choosing. This is clearly stated by Msgr. Perl.

[quote name='Msgr. Camille Perl']Unfortunately, as you will understand, we have no way of controlling what is done with our letters by their recipients. Our letter of 27 September 2002, which was evidently cited in The Remnant and on various websites, was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us. What was presented in the public forum is an abbreviated version of that letter which omits much of our pastoral counsel. Since a truncated form of this letter has now become public, we judge it appropriate to present the larger context of our response.

In a previous letter to the same correspondent we had already indicated the canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X which we will summarize briefly here.

1.) The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.

2.) Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church.

Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was "Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass" and our response was:

1.  In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X." His second question was "Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass" and we responded stating:

2.  We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin."

His third question was: "Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection a Pius X Mass" to which we responded:

3.  It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified."

Further, the correspondent took the Commission to task for not doing its job properly and we responded thus:

This Pontifical Commission does not have the authority to coerce Bishops to provide for the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. Nonetheless, we are frequently in contact with Bishops and do all that we can to see that this provision is made. However, this provision also depends on the number of people who desire the 'traditional' Mass, their motives and the availability of priests who can celebrate it.

[b]You also state in your letter that the Holy Father has given you a 'right' to the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. This is not correct. It is true that he has asked his brother Bishops to be generous in providing for the celebration of this Mass, but he has not stated that it is a 'right'. Presently it constitutes an exception to the Church's law and may be granted when the local Bishop judges it to be a valid pastoral service and when he has the priests who are available to celebrate it.[/b]

[b][i][u]Every Catholic has a right to the sacraments (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 843), but he does not have a right to them according to the rite of his choice." [/u][/i][/b]

We hope that this puts in a clearer light the letter about which you asked us.

With prayerful best wishes for this New Year of Our Lord 2003, I remain

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl Secretary[/quote]

So, again, this is a matter of obedience to the wishes of the Holy Father, to whom we owe our obedience.....