Latin Mass Attracts Young Worshippers and Converts in Bob Jones University Territory

The Greenville News ^ | 4/27/04 | Ron Barnett

[Mershon]

The sanctuary is both modern and Romanesque, a streamlined brick and glass edifice with a lofty, vaulted ceiling.

And inside this brand new house of worship on Greenville's Eastside echoes a liturgy that is nearly as ancient as Christianity itself - the Traditional Latin Mass.

[kstewskis]

thanks for pointing that out.

Re, my post #38. The nun I mentioned was talking about "schismatic" sects (and had to get her dig into Mel Gibson, which really ticked me off...but that's beside the point)

...she told this large group (the RCIA group newly joining the Church) that Lefebvre was indeed "excommunicated" and had "recanted" on his death bed. But in the meantime, he had appointed bishops while "disobedient," (i.e. they were not valid, ect...) and there is where the problem lie with the SSPX.

I'm only telling you this, because this is what is "spread" (pun intended) around. I don't claim to be an expert or extremely knowledgeable on the subject (but I am learning), but that's why I look to my fellow Freepers for that kind of information :)

[ultima ratio]

Here is what you say, much of it wrong: "However, it would appear that many "traditionalists" who post on this site go to masses of schismatic groups even if there is an indult mass available, and even if there is not one, they go far beyond attending a schismatic mass out of 'necessity,' but actually publicly and vocally proslytize on this site on behalf of schismatic groups, encourage others to disobey and disrespect the legitimate authorities of the Church, including the Pope, schismatically call into question the legitimate authority of the Pope and the Catholicity of the Church, speaking of a 'Novus Ordo Church' and other schismatic phrases"

Here are the facts.

1. Catholics may not only attend SSPX Masses for reasons of "necessity" alone--though many do for that reason--but also for reasons of devotion. Here is what Msgr. Perle of Ecclesia Dei said in his most recent letter on the subject:
"If your intention [for attending Mass at an SSPX chapel] is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal FOR THE SAKE OF DEVOTION, this would not be a sin." I would add that not only is it not a sin--but for many Catholics it is probably the only sure means of attaining grace for Mass attendance, given the sorry state of the Novus Ordo priesthood and episcopacy, as well as most Novus Ordo Masses. Of course we speak out on this site, by the way. Why should we let lies about us flourish without correction--or lies about the faith itself, for that matter?

2. No one I know who attends Mass at an SSPX chapel, nor any priest of the SSPX has ever called "into question the legitimate authority of the Pope and the Catholicity of the Church." This is more of your nonsense. I repeat--NEVER have we called into question JPII's legitimacy. This was untrue from the first day it was uttered--and was an untrue statement when JPII said as much in his Ecclesia Dei letter. We do, however, call into question his wisdom and his orthodoxy, as when he places his Catholicism on a par with Voodoo priests and animists, or attacks Catholic Tradition itself--and we have every right to do so as Catholics. But we do not question his legitimacy as pope. Nor do we question the Catholicity of the Church as you falsely state. We call into question the Catholicity of the Vatican bureaucracy--an altogether different thing.

The problem is that you recognize no distinction between the Vatican and the faith itself. But the Vatican is not the Church. Nor is it the faith.

[kstewskis]

Your nun is causing scandal through detraction and calumny, and should shut her mouth.

I'm really trying not to LOL, but I agree with you wholeheartedly.

If I had some ammo to give her, perhaps it would quiet her down. Can you give me any suggestions?

thanks :)

[gemoftheocean]

I heard this same thought expressed in my own parish, rather vehemently, that the "theology" of Vatican II was different than what came before.

Not wanting to get into a heated dispute at that time, I calmly expressed my disagreement with the statement and we moved on. What say you, Catholics? Did Vatican II express a a different theology?

I've read a few of the documents and I don't see it.

I agree. It's the people who didn't understand the "old church" who have trouble with the new! [Hint: the essentials are the same....]

I'm also amused about the phrase "Latin, instead of the vernacular." Like the people using it have no clue that once GREEK was the common language of the mass...until people no longer universally understood Greek...so it was permitted in the vernacular of its time....Latin.

Always fun to point out that the "Kyrie" is GREEK.

[ultima ratio]

"representing a change not in the truths of the faith but rather in the common understanding of those truths."

This is doublespeak. It is the way modernists think. The theologians of the past two thousand years, as well as the faithful, were too dumb to understand the truths of faith. These have to be newly translated--because the "common understanding" of those truths were misunderstood until modern geniuses arrived on the scene to reveal their meanings. The result is evident: unprecedented confusion and chaos--all in the name of clarification.

[ultima ratio]

I was referring to the motu proprio--which merely announced something had supposedly taken place and had kicked-in automatically. He himself refers to the late sententiae. But he never himself officially declared the Society excommunicated nor schismatic--only unofficially in a letter, and wrongly, by the way. Canon Law, remember, had its own caveats to disobedience--and it is the Pope's own law, trumping even the motu proprio as authoritative. It was a canon of Canon Law providing for the "state of necessity" that the Archbishop properly evoked. Therefore no penalty was ever sustained. That is the bottom line canonically, however much p.r. Rome puts out to the contrary.

[kstewskis]

It was a canon of Canon Law providing for the "state of necessity" that the Archbishop properly evoked. Therefore no penalty was ever sustained. That is the bottom line canonically, however much p.r. Rome puts out to the contrary.

I think you clarified my understanding of what happened there too, thanks.

[Maximilian]

Mel Gibson never had the priests from the Legion of Christ offer Holy Mass on set. Mel attends ONLY the TLM. There have been at least two articles recently about the priests who offered Holy Mass, both in union with the Holy See.

Actually, Mel did have priests from the Legionaires of Christ on the set. I don't know for a fact that they offered Mass, but they may have celebrated the New Mass separately from the Latin Mass that Mel attended. I'm pretty certain that Cavaziel attended another Mass.

The priest who most often offered the Latin Mass on the set of "The Passion" was Fr. Stephen Somerville. He is a priest from Canada who back in the sixties and seventies had been a member of the ICEL committee that wrote the execrable "translation" of the Mass. In the recent past he wrote a public denunciation of his own service on the committee and renounced any support or approval of what was done with his assistance. He has since become a "cooperating" priest with the SSPX.

Renouncing My Service on I.C.E.L. - An Open Letter - by Father Stephen Somerville, STL

His is a common situation. Others that come to mind are Fr. Stephen Zigrang and Fr. Lawrence Smith, both of whom left their diocesan assignments last year to cooperate with the SSPX. The SSPX is a fraternal society of priests, similar to a religious order, and only certain priest are official members. But there are many other priests both religious and diocesan who cooperate by offering the traditional Latin Mass at SSPX-associated chapels.

[Mershon]

"That is the bottom line canonically, however much p.r. Rome puts out to the contrary."

According to "ultima ratio's" illogical reasoning (how ironic!) or private opinion vs. that of the official arbiter of canon law--the Pope. Read Vatican I again. The Pope is bound by canon law, but HE is the ultimate interpreter. Therefore, his interpretation of canon law, unless proven otherwise by the Roman Rota (whom the Pope is over, by the way) is authoritative. Do you have an official document from Rome saying something different than Ecclesia Dei Adflicta? Or do you have a "canon lawyer" SSPX priest? That would be quite humorous since the SSPX does not even recognize the authority of the 1983 code, but always reverts to the 1917 code. So, according to your SSPX canon lawyer per the 1917 code, Archbishop Lefebvre's excommunication was unjust or invalid, even though he ordained bishops against the will of the Holy Father? Is that what you are saying?

[ultima ratio]

Typical propaganda about who's in and who's out from the Novus Ordo Church. What makes you think the Holy See, with apostate cardinals like Kasper calling the shots, is "in the Church"? How are two-thirds of the bishops of Amchurch "in the Church"? The argument can be validly made that only traditionalists, who alone uphold true Catholic tradition, are the remnant-survivors of the true Catholic Church.

[eastsider]

The truths of our faith have been given various treatments throughout the Church's because no single language, no single worldview, can adequately describe the ineffable. For example, it took over two-and-a-half centuries for the word hypostasis to appear on the theological horizon, and even then there were ossified theologians who objected to the term as non-scriptural.

The ultimate truth of our faith is a Person, and all theology but metaphor.

[kstewskis]

Renouncing My Service on I.C.E.L. - An Open Letter - by Father Stephen Somerville, STL

Wow! Bookmarked. And thanks for sharing this.

[ultima ratio]

I'm not impressed by your citations. They have been hashed and rehashed on this site for two years now. I note you do not cite Canon Law which allows for an EXCEPTION in a state of necessity for disobedience. The archbishop evoked this canon--legitimately. He therefore incurred no penalty, no matter how many times the Pope says he did.

It is not up to the pope to decide what the intention behind the Archbishop's disobedience. He presumes it was to deny his authority. But he offers no evidence for this, and, indeed, there is none. There are many reasons why a papal command might be refused--the rejection of his authority would be only one possibility among many.

The Archbishop had said it was to defend the ancient Mass in a state of necessity. There is a mountain of evidence to show this was his true belief. Though the Pope maintains there was no such state, the historical data is there for anybody with an open mind to see. Throughout the seventies and eighties, and up till today, the Church has been reeling from crisis to crisis. The Pope's own predecessor called it an "auto-destruction." It is difficult to believe, therefore, that the Archbishop was wrong to declare such a state, whatever JPII might say as he awaits his Vatican II springtime that somehow never comes.

Canon Law, remember, is the Pope's own law. And Canon Law reflects divine law--that the inculpable should not be punished. Only the Archbishop would know what was in his heart as the reason for disobedience--and he has said over and over it was to preserve the old Mass from destruction caused by the Pope's destructive liberal policies, and that he evoked the state of necessity for the salvation of souls and the good of the Church.

Had the Pope wanted certitude on all this, he had recourse to a papal tribunal. He did not rely on this customary means for determining the culpability of high prelates. Had he done so, he would have been obliged by canon law to provide the Archbishop with a means for self-defense. Apparently the Pope for whatever reasons wouldn't risk this. Instead he seized on the latae sententiae pretext to marginalize the SSPX and its defense of Catholic tradition. It has failed as a ploy. The SSPX continues to flourish even as the Novus Ordo wallows in continual and unabating apostasy and corruption.

[ultima ratio]

Wrong. We understand the old theology--and it has little in common with the new. The Novus Ordo violates Trent, for instance, suppressing the sacrificial features of the Mass, for the sake of a Protestant Paschal Meal theology--all of which agrees more with Martin Luther than with Catholic practice going back two thousand years.

[ultima ratio]

Of course the Pope is the arbiter of canon law. When have I said otherwise? But he has not renounced a single one of its canons--which are based on the highest of all laws--the Divine Law itself. So what is your point? If what he says in a letter is denied by what he says in Canon Law--which has precedence as authoritative? Canon Law, of course.

But even here the final arbiter is neither the Pope himself nor canon law--but the conscience of Archbishop Lefebvre. If he disobeyed to preserve the faith--then he is not culpable. Not all the papal letters in the world can make him guilty if he was not guilty. It is not a matter of who has the higher rank. It is a matter of what is the objective truth, a matter of who is telling the truth about the Archbishop's own motives. But the former knew with certitude; the latter could only guess.

[Grey Ghost II]

Then why not just move an hour and a half down the road and join a Catholic Church in union with Rome in Greenville, SC

For a Mass offered only two Sundays per month in a hideous church?

[Pyro7480]

For a Mass offered only two Sundays per month in a hideous church?

I agree with your point about the Mass only being twice a month, but the church isn't that bad. The basic structure was only finished last year. It takes a long while for a church to get to be outfitted with stautes, mosaics, etc., and achieve "completed" form. One of my favorite churches, a church built in the mid-20th century by Italian-Americans in my hometown, looked pretty similar when it was initially-completed, but now it is gorgeous!

[Mershon]

Vatican I and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta are propaganda? That's funny. I thought they were official documents of the Roman Catholic Church? OK, Ultima, if these documents are not authoritative, and the authority does NOT reside in Rome, where is it?

Extra SSPX, there is no salvation? Seriously, where is it?

[Mershon]

"I note you do not cite Canon Law which allows for an EXCEPTION in a state of necessity for disobedience. The archbishop evoked this canon--legitimately."

I'm sorry, I didn't know that canon law CONFLICTED with Vatican I and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta. I thought the ultimate concern of Canon Law was the salvation of souls, which is what Vatican I speaks about. The funny thing is that the Pope thinks otherwise than your quote above, so this brings you back to Vatican I. We cite authoritative documents. You cite opinions. Every SSPX adherent is a canon lawyer, whose opinion surpasses that of the reigning Pontiff. I guess it is easier to fight outside the Church than inside of it.

[saradippity]

Just tell the divisive nun that there are at least 3 ways that might permit the situation with Mel Gibson's Chapel to be within the boundaries of the One,Holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church. Those are in addition to the possibility that Cardinal Mahony may have given permission before understanding the consequences and has now forgotten that he did.

Tell her that we all recognize he has been very busy with the child abuse scandal in his diocese and the accusations that he has been less than forthright in the matter of the number of priests involved as well as what he has done with them. There are allegations that several are still in hiding but active priests in the area. In other words,it is not surprising that he may not recall the particulars of Mel's private chapel;however,the possibility that he himself authorized it cannot be discounted.

You might also remind her that there are scholars who argue that the status of the the Pius X clerics is debateable but conclude they are not schismatic. Furthermore the members who attend may not be affected,no matter the status of the clerics.

But the bottom line is that there are canon laws about private chapels and other canon laws related to priests with authorization from the Pope to use the Tridentine rite,not exclusively,of course,that make the speculations of an ordinary catholic "religious" unwise and presumptuous,at the very least. Because modernists/progressives have been so meanspirited and conniving I am unwilling to describe further the means by which this situation is/was/could have been sanctioned.