CAN WE ATTEND THE INDULT MASS?

Society of Saint Pius X ^ | June 1993 | Father Van Es

[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.

[pipeorganman]

So you were there?

[ultima ratio]

Our Lord also said, "By their fruits you will know them." The SSPX has been fruitful and has been growing. It has flourished in this country, building chapels and schools. It continues to attract vocations. It has also been free of scandal.

Now look at the Novus Ordo Church. It is imploding. It lacks vocations and the faithful are leaving in droves. Its bishops lack faith and they show it. Many are overtly corrupt. It is a Church that has been plagued by scandal after scandal and this continues even till today.

I would say that given such a sorry record, Catholics would do well to be more disgruntled and ask some serious questions about how we got to where we are. Who elevated all these losers? Why was our heritage thrown away for the current mess?

[ultima ratio]

Beautifully said.

[ninenot]

I have to admit that their description of attendance at an Old Rite Mass as a "mortal sin" is extreme. Are you sure that they were not confused--that they thought you were referring to one of the excommunicandi cults (Thuc, etc.)?

Either that or these people are, frankly, lunatics.

[ninenot]

The Novus Ordo Mass teaches a quasi-catholic faith that is foreign to the ancient teachings of Catholicism.

Unless you are referring to NO's which were celebrated with flagrant violations of the liturgical norms established, this statement borders on heresy.

The NO, as established by Paul VI, CANNOT in itself be "foreign to" the ancient teachings of Catholicism.

It can and certainly DOES remove a good deal of very useful text from what the Old Rite has.

[sinkspur]

The Novus Ordo Mass teaches a quasi-catholic faith that is foreign to the ancient teachings of Catholicism.

It doesn't, of course, but you need to maintain that theory so that you can feel better about attending the Tridentine Mass.

Why not just recognize that you prefer a Latin Mass with minimal involvement from the faithful? That's fine; nothing wrong with that.

Instead, you and other Integrists have to tear down the theological underpinnings of the Novus Ordo so that you, and you alone, can be seen to attend the only "true" Mass.

Both Masses are accepted in the Church, they are both valid, they both teach the Truth, they both offer the faithful the opportunity to worship God.

Why not make your choice without attempting to destroy the Mass I hold dear?

I attend the Novus Ordo because I prefer the vernacular and the active participation of the congregation in the worship of God. The Novus Ordo is the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ and a remembrance of the Last Supper.

For those who prefer the Tridentine Mass, great. Just as we are united with our Eastern Rite brethren in a common faith, so we are united with those who worship at the Tridentine Mass in a common faith.

Let us celebrate the common faith instead of trying to play one-upsmanship in the liturgical arena.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I don't know how many times this will have to be repeated to the NeoCatholics

Adolf Hitler suggested that massive lies should be repeated frequently, generously, at every opportunity, and as often as possible.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

The SSPX has been fruitful and has been growing

"Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadelphians, 105 A.D.

[Aloysius]

Adolf Hitler suggested that massive lies should be repeated frequently, generously, at every opportunity, and as often as possible.

Just curious as to with whom the Hitler comparison is being made: the head of the Ecclesia Dei commission who said the faithful can attend the SSPX Masses or the NeoCatholics who cry "schism"?

[ninenot]

Neither.

The comparo is to the SSPX figure in the USA who has a large collection of Nazi memorabilia in his office at St. Mary's, KS.

[Aloysius]

The comparo is to the SSPX figure in the USA who has a large collection of Nazi memorabilia in his office at St. Mary's, KS.

Obviously you haven't been there. If you are referring to Bishop Williamson's office, it's in Winona, Minnesota.

Get your facts straight before you slander people. BTW, Is that a sin in AmChurch?

[ultima ratio]

If you will trace the origin of the so-called SSPX excommunication, you will discover it never happened. The claim the bishops of the SSPX were excommunicated has become a campaign of disinformation that is endlessly repeated to demonize the SSPX. But since there was no excommunication in the first place, there was no schism.

1. Most people believe the Pope excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988. But the Pope only published a letter stating the excommunication had occurred latae sententiae--that is to say, automatically, according to Canon Law. He believed this had occurred because of the Archbishop's disobedience in consecrating bishops against the wishes of the Pontiff.

2. But Canon Law qualifies such excommunication. It provides an important exception. If there is a "state of necessity," the subject may disobey his superior, even the pope, without incurring any penalty. What's more, even if the subject were mistaken about this state of emergency, as long as he evoked the canon believing in good conscience there was such a state, he incurred no penalty.

3. There can be no doubt the Archbishop believed he was forced to disobey the Pontiff because of the crisis in the Church which threatened to destroy the old Mass and Catholic Tradition itself. The Pontiff had forbidden any consecration of traditional priests. The Archbishop was very old and ill--he knew if he didn't consecrate, the traditional priesthood itself would disappear. Catholic Tradition had already been destroyed in every other part of the Church. He was the sole holdout defending the ancient liturgy as it had been handed-down from apostolic times. He therefore evoked the canon in good conscience.

4. Those who say if the Pope says in his letter the Archbishop and his bishops were excommunicated, they are excommunicated, regardless of what Canon Law says, do not understand what Canon Law is. It is the Pope's law. So you have the phenomenon of a papal Canon Law opposed by a papal letter. There can be no doubt that Canon Law has precedence over a papal letter. Hence, there was no excommunication.

5. Those who argue it was for the Pope to decide whether an emergency existed in the Church or not, do not understand the canon involved. This is because even if the Archbishop mistakenly believed there was a crisis in the Church, as long as he acted in good conscience, there was no penalty incurred.

6. But, in fact, there WAS an emergency in the Church. Even Paul VI spoke of the smoke of Satan having entered the sanctuary of the Catholic Church. He complained publicly about the Church's own auto-demolition of its own doctrines and traditions. Scandals were exploding everywhere left and right. The Archbishop acted therefore prudently, desirous to preclude further destruction.

7. But even if there were not an emergency, the Archbishop believed there was. He therefore properly evoked the canon in good conscience--and not even a pope can get inside another man's soul to determine whether that act of conscience were insincerely evoked. But, in fact, we know it was sincere. We know this because long before the Archbishop evoked the canon, he had complained about the destruction in the Church and the protestantizing of its Mass. He saw the Church in a state of emergency and said so frequently--long before his act of disobedience.

8. Finally, it should be remembered that disobedience is permissible if a command is given by a superior to an inferior that would result in harm to the Church. This has been a perennial teaching of the Church that has been confirmed by its most eminent doctors of theology, including Thomas Aquinas and Robert Bellarmine. The Archbishop acted wisely and prudently--which is why it is Rome who is now making the overtures for the "regularization" of the SSPX, rather than the Society itself.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

the head of the Ecclesia Dei commission who said the faithful can attend the SSPX Masses

Ah, I see you do not miss opportunities to generously repeat yourself! Good work, man! Keep going! Remember: repeat it frequently, generously, at every opportunity, and as often as possible!

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

But since there was no excommunication in the first place, there was no schism.

The Pope says there is, therefore you lose. Good bye.

"Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadelphians, 105 A.D.

which is why it is Rome who is now making the overtures for the "regularization" of the SSPX, rather than the Society itself.

Because it's the shepherd who goes forth to bring back the lost sheep, not the other way around.

[ultima ratio]

The great Klaus Gamber, the twentieth century's foremost liturgist along with Josef Jungmann, called the Novus Ordo a tragic break with Catholic Tradition--and he was referring to its Latin version. He called it "frightening." He also said that a Catholic from the past, entering a Catholic church today, "would feel as if he had entered a strange, foreign place. He would think that he must have come to the wrong address and that he accidentally ended up in some other Christian religious community." (Reform of the Roman Liturgy, Harrison, NY, p. 107.)

[Aloysius]

Ah, I see you do not miss opportunities to generously repeat yourself! Good work, man! Keep going! Remember: repeat it frequently, generously, at every opportunity, and as often as possible!

Obviously the TRUTH is painful to you. One of the classic signs of one who has no winning argument is to resort to Hitler comparisons.

[ultima ratio]

You didn't read my post. Read it again. The Pope's Canon Law says there wasn't an excommunication. His letter said there was. Canon Law trumps a letter.

As for a shepherd looking after his sheep, this Pontiff would do well to look after his own fellow-shepherds who are destroying the faith of millions.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

You didn't read my post. Read it again

Ooohh... this is sooo hard... on the one hand, I have you, a renowned internet nobody. On the other hand, I have the Apostolic See... which shall I choose to believe?... Hmmmmm.... Oooohhh this is sooo hard.... my faith lies in the balance...

Ok, I choose the Pope. Therefore you lose. Good bye!

"Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadelphians, 105 A.D.

[ninenot]

Call Mike Jones at Culture Wars magazine.

The office in question was AT ST.MARY'S, KANSAS. Frankly, I forget (mercifully) which SSPX ordained apparatchik occupied the office.

History began before 2000, you know.