Posted on 04/25/2003 6:36:46 PM PDT by NYer
| QUESTION 10 CAN WE ATTEND THE INDULT MASS? |
The Society of Saint Pius X could never profit by Rome’s Indult (the traditional Latin Mass as allowed by Quattuor Abhinc Annos, 1984 and Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, 1988), first because of the conditions attached to it, and, in particular, that of acknowledging the “doctrinal and juridical” value of the Novus Ordo Missae which is impossible ( cf. QUESTION 5 ); and second, but more fundamentally, because such acceptance of the Indult would amount to saying that the Church had lawfully suppressed the traditional Latin Mass, which is certainly not the case ( cf.
PRINCIPLE 19 ).
But other priests have profited by it, some jumping at the chance to say the traditional Latin Mass, others only because requested by their Bishop, and the odd one or two who would always say the traditional Latin Mass anyway but have accepted to do so under the auspices of the Indult for “pastoral reasons.”
CAN WE ATTEND THEIR MASSES?
If we have to agree to the doctrinal and juridical value of the Novus Ordo Missae, then NO, for we cannot do evil that good may ensue.
This condition may not be presented explicitly, but by implication, such as:
By a priest who celebrates the Novus Ordo Missae on other days of the week or at other times,
using Hosts consecrated at a Novus Ordo Missae,
or with communion in the hand;
new lectionaries, Mass facing the people, etc.,
by a priest who was ordained in the New Rite,
by sermons that are modernist in inspiration (much to be feared if the celebrant habitually says the Novus Ordo Missae); or
by offering only the revised forms of the other sacraments, e.g., penance.
This brings up the whole context of the Indult Mass. It is:
A ploy to keep people away from the Society of Saint Pius X (for many Bishops allow it only where there is a Society of Saint Pius X Mass center),
intended only for those who feel attached to the traditional Latin Mass but nevertheless accept the doctrinal rectitude and juridical right of the Novus Ordo Missae, Vatican II, and all official orientations corresponding to these.
Therefore, attending it because of the priest’s words or fellow Mass-goers’ pressure, or because of the need to pander to the local Bishop just to have it, inevitably pushes one to keep quiet on “divisive issues” and, distance oneself from those who do not keep quiet i.e., it pushes one to join the ranks of those who are destroying the church. This one cannot do (cf., also QUESTION 13 ).
The Indult Mass, therefore, is not for traditional Catholics.*
|
* One possible exception would be the case of those priests who happen to be saying the traditional Latin Mass under the Indult or with a Roman celebret (permissions given for the old Missal to priests applying to the Ecclesia Dei Commission, in the wake of the consecrations of Archbishop Lefebvre [ QUESTION 11 ]) but would be saying it anyway if these were denied them. |
Evil .... that is the view held by the SSPX of the Novus Ordo mass.
What does that make us, who attend the NO Rite? A rite sanctioned by the Vatican?
That about says it all! In fact, it's all or nothing .... nothing short of a total reversal of Vatican II will satisfy these people.
What is truly disturbing is that those of us who have remained faithful to the Magisterium, are viewed as outsiders in this context. It is as if we, who have followed the pope, are wrong and those, who have isolated themselves, are in the right. They go so far as to disdain the FSSP which offers the same Tridentine Rite, simply because it is sanctioned by the pope.
There is a whale of a difference between the musings of this or that hierarch of the Catholic Church, and this document, which is actually from the Frequently Asked Questions part of the official SSPX site. This is the official position of the excommunicated SSPX.
This would be more akin to finding a condemnation of the Trindentine Rite on the Vatican's own website. When you find such a thing, let me know. Then you will have an argument to make.
Until then, it can only be conceded that this is the official policy of the SSPX, and it is evil and despicable.
sitetest
Thank you! This is truly frightening. We who, despite our own disagreements with the radical left wing of the church, have adhered to the teachings of the Vatican and our Holy Father are viewed as some sort of heathen. Millions of catholics follow the teachings of the Vatican. What does this say about them?
A preliminary observation is in order. The Mass has not changed since Christ instituted this sacrament on the night before His crucifixion. In essence, there is neither an “old” Mass nor a “new” Mass, but only the Mass. In fact what changed after the Second Vatican Council was not the Mass, but the liturgy.
This means that while the “accidents” (to use a classical theological term) differ somewhat between the pre-Vatican II liturgy and the reformed liturgy of Pope Paul VI, their essence remains the same: the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ transubstantiated into the Eucharist. This central mystery of the Mass takes place regardless of whether the priest celebrates according to the liturgical books in use before the Second Vatican Council or according to the liturgical books revised by Pope Paul VI. In fact, both sets of liturgical books are usages of the same Roman liturgical rite.
When I was associated with the SSPX, to defend the claim that the reformed liturgy is intrinsically evil I used to quote the seventh canon on the Sacrifice of the Mass from the Council of Trent. This canon states: “If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of Masses are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.”
Let’s look at this more closely. Since the definition of intrinsic evil is “something which in and of itself is evil,” we see from the Council of Trent that an approved liturgy of the Church cannot be such. For something that is intrinsically evil is naturally an incentive to impiety, while the Council of Trent declares dogmatically that the approved liturgical ceremonies of the Catholic Church cannot be incentives to impiety.
But wait a second: Wasn’t the revised liturgy of Pope Paul VI an approved liturgy of the Church? Of course! So according to the Tradition of the Church as dogmatically defined at the Ecumenical Council of Trent, I could only conclude that the reformed liturgy of Pope Paul VI cannot be an incentive to impiety. It necessarily follows, then, that neither could it be intrinsically evil. Thus in my defense of the schismatic position I stood refuted by the very Catholic Tradition from the Council of Trent that I was seeking to preserve through adherence to the SSPX schism.
PART I. Can women be permitted to sing in the choir in church?
Sorry, Des, it seems you cannot sing at the Tridentine Rite. The principles are given by Pope Saint Pius X in his motu proprio on the restoration of Sacred Music, and in particular of the ancient Gregorian Chant. This document of Nov. 22, 1903, is entitled Tra le sollecitudine and is published in its entirety in the March 1995 issue of The Angelus (pp.36-40).
The Pope states repeatedly that the Sacred Chant is an integral part of the liturgy, directed to the glory of God and the sanctification and edification of the faithful. (§1) It is consequently not a performance, but a part of the act of divine worship. His conclusion follows:
Except the chant of the celebrant and the sacred ministers at the altar, which must always be sung in plainchant without any accompaniment, the rest of the liturgical singing belongs properly to the choir of clerics...It follows from the same principle that the singers in church have a real liturgical office, and that women therefore, being incapable of such an office, cannot be admitted to the choir (§§12, 13). [Answered by Father Peter R. Scott]
Is it possible to say that the post-conciliar Church is a new religion, and if so, how can it be considered as Catholic?
The response is quite long. Here is the conclusion:
Conclusion
It consequently cannot be denied that Vatican II attempts to constitute a new religion in radical rupture with all of Catholic Tradition and teaching, a new religion whose principal purpose is to exalt the natural dignity of the human person and to bring about a "religious" unity of mankind. However, the subtle cleverness of this operation must also be noted. It is the traditional hierarchical structure of the Church, its Mass, its devotions and prayers, its catechisms and teachings, and now even its Rosary that have all been infiltrated with the principles of the new religion. This new religion has been swallowed down unwittingly by many Catholics precisely because it hides, as a caricature, behind the outward appearance of Catholicism. The end result is a strange mixture of Catholicism and the new religion.
This is the reason for which we have every right to condemn the post-conciliar revolution for the new religion that it is, while at the same time we must respect the offices and functions of those who hold positions in the Church. Likewise, we must admit that many Catholics in good faith still retain the true Faith in their hearts, believing on the authority of God, Who reveals divine truth through the Catholic Church, although it is often tainted to varying degrees by the principles of the new religion. Consequently, it does not at all follow from the fact that the Vatican II religion is truly a new religion, that we should maintain that we are the only Catholics left, that the bishops and the Pope have necessarily lost the Faith, and that we must not pray for them or respect their position in the Church. This false assertion of the sedevacantists is much too simple, and does not account for the complicated mixture of the new religion and the elements of Catholic Faith and life that is the reality that is actually happening in the Novus Ordo. Our duty is not to condemn and excommunicate, but to help Catholics of good faith in the modern Church to make the necessary discernment, in order to totally abandon the new religion, embrace Tradition, and remain Catholic. Such must be the goal of our conversations on the subject. [answered by Father Peter Scott]
Even its rosary???!!! It seems that even the new mysteries given us by Pope John Paul II, do not qualify as valid. Those of us who have hung on to papal teachings are truly doomed.
Does one of those camps house the sedevacanists?
Statements like this are to reassure the hardliners that they won't be sold out for the sake of restoring juridical communion with Rome.
So, in essence, you are confirming that the SSPX cannot be reconciled with Rome unless the Novus Ordo mass is overturned and the Tridentine Rite restored in all churches around the globe? Are these the conditions set by the SSPX for full communion with Rome?
From what people I know in SSPX tell me, there are some, but most have already left for sedevacantist groups.
The real division is between those who will tolerate the New Order as long as they have a personal prelature or apostolic administration, and those who want an overthrow of the New Order sooner or later.
So, in essence, you are confirming that the SSPX cannot be reconciled with Rome unless the Novus Ordo mass is overturned and the Tridentine Rite restored in all churches around the globe? Are these the conditions set by the SSPX for full communion with Rome?
No one believes this to be a real possibility for the near future. The leadership might be spinning the idea of the overturn of the New Order as a distant inevitability to the hardliners to keep them from grumbling too loudly.
Bear in mind also that the article you posted is from 1993. Nobody was interested in talking to anybody at that point. The bitterness was just too strong.
If the SSPX got exactly what they want, there would be a rupture in the Catholic Church that would parallel the Reformation, I think.
People like you and I and most NO types on these threads would still attend Mass because we know why we go, but when I think of probably 90% of my parish, I'm not so sure.
I can hear the justifications of the SSPXers about what I posted above, but to lose that many souls would be a spiritual tragedy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.