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.

[ninenot]

Yes. So?

Is Gamber denying validity? liceity? NOPE.

But Gamber is right.

[Aloysius]

Call Mike Jones at Culture Wars magazine.

The burden of disproving your rumor doesn't fall on me.

[ultima ratio]

I wondered how long it would take for the ad hominem attacks to start coming. You apparently are at a loss for arguments and so get down-and-dirty. Can't say I blame you since citing St. Ignatius over and over is really pretty futile, especially since the Church Father has far more in common with traditional Catholicism and Archbishop Lefebvre than with modernist Rome--so your message understandably gets muddled. Try answering the objections I raise more honestly, you might have better success. But be sure to do a little background reading beforehand so as not to advertize your ignorance.

[ninenot]

Nor me. I don't really care. SSPX is not where I have my children.

[ultima ratio]

Here we go again with your "validity" crusade. That's all you guys cling to. Look, a new Mercedes and a 1978 klunker are both valid cars. But I wouldn't want to drive the klunker cross-country--much too dangerous.

[ultima ratio]

By the way, the "apostolic see" is often wrong, if you haven't noticed. Only by sticking with Tradition can it claim protection of the Holy Spirit--but this See is enamored of Revolution and so goes unprotected from error--of which there have been plenty in the past forty years.

[Aloysius]

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

Do you defend the large number of AmChurch bishops who have a collection of pornography in their offices? After all they are the ones who have approved the perverted sex ed programs in the diocesan schools. Do you consider these deviants in union with the Holy Father?

Click Here to see what kind of smut the US bishops are peddling to catholic Children

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Try answering the objections I raise

1. Canon 333.3 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law (Canon 228.2 of the 1917 Code) which states: "There is no recourse or appeal from a decision of the Roman Pontiff."

2. The Pope writes: (Ecclesia Dei): "In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for Bishops last June 17, Archbishop 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."

And furthermore, he writes:

"Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law."

3. "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.

You lose. Good bye!

[sinkspur]

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?

LOL! So mistakenly placing someone is slander, but possession of Nazi memorabilia is just dandy?

Williamson's that pervert who admires the Unabomber.

[Aloysius]

but possession of Nazi memorabilia is just dandy?

Nobody has provided any evidence that Bishop Williamson posses Nazi memorabilia. Anyway, it's better to posses Nazi memorabilia with historical significance that to possess child pormography like many US bishops.

By the way, I'll see Bishop Williamson this Sunday, so I'll ask him. Would his word suffice or does he need to produce pictures of his office?

[sinkspur]

By the way, I'll see Bishop Williamson this Sunday, so I'll ask him.

Ask him if he and Ted Kasczynski are still pen pals.

Oh, and I'm sure he'd say his possession of Nazi memorabilia is merely for its historical value.

I'm not aware that any bishop has been accused, in a publication, of possessing child porn, much less many. Do you know of one?

If so, please detail here so that we can turn him into the cops.

[Aloysius]

I'm not aware that any bishop has been accused, in a publication, of possessing child porn, much less many. Do you know of one?

Every US bishops that endorses sexual education in the schools is a pervert and in the state of grave sin. The list is too long to list, but here are some samples:

Click Here to See What Homosexual, Peverted Bishops are Forcing on Young, Innocent, Catholic Children

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Nobody has provided any evidence that Bishop Williamson posses Nazi memorabilia.

So why did you immediately think of Williamson when ninenot mentioned "the SSPX figure in the USA who has a large collection of Nazi memorabilia"?

[ultima ratio]

Not at all. Reread my post. Canon Law is papal law. When Canon Law allows for an exception, it is an exception prescribed by the pope himself. He can't then turn around and say--oops! it doesn't exist--at least not in a mere letter. He must change the law first--which he didn't do.

So you are right there is no appeal from a papal decision. But in this case there was no decision. The pope's Canon Law made the penalty for disobedience an automatic one, latae sententiae, unless the exception applied. It most certainly did apply. Hence no excommunication.

In fact, the Pope himself never excommunicated the Archbishop--though this is falsely asserted by many. His letter merely announced what he believed had happened since the excommunication, if it took place, would have been automatic. He failed to take into consideration his own provision in his own Canon Law for the right to disobedience in a state of necessity.

Sorry, you lose. Try again.

[ultima ratio]

One more point: the charge of schism was always phony. Disobedience is not schism. The Archbishop never denied the Pope's legitimacy or authority. He simply disobeyed--for good reason, to protect the traditional faith. Nor did the Archbishop set up a parallel church or usurp anyone's jurisdiction. He taught no new doctrines nor instituted any new practices. In fact, it was the other way around. It was the Pope who pushed for novelty and revolution and who assaulted Catholic Tradition.

Once again, the Pope erred--as mortals often do, even popes. None of this involved any degree of papal infallibility. The self-contradictory letter (self-contradictory since it opposed his own Canon Law), Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, issued by the Pontiff announcing the latae sententia judgment was a simple matter of discipline only. As such, it was subject to error. Indeed, history has proved the Archbishop right to have disobeyed to protect Catholic tradition from the modernist assault posed by the liberal pontiff. Had he obeyed, Catholic tradition would have never survived, the Indult would never have been granted, and the future would have been even bleaker than it now is.

[ultima ratio]

This is calumny. There was no "large collection of Nazi memorabilia." Not a shred of truth to this.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

So you are right there is no appeal from a papal decision.

Of course I am right. Which means you are wrong. Sorry, you lose. Good bye!

The Pope says... "Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act. In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for Bishops last June 17, Archbishop 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... Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law." (Ecclesia Dei)

Canon law says... "There is no recourse or appeal from a decision of the Roman Pontiff." (Canon 333.3 of the 1983 Code, Canon 228.2 of the 1917 Code)

St Ignatius of Antioch says... "If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God." (Epistle to the Philadelphians)

[ultima ratio]

He was not an admirer of the Unabomber--another piece of slander. He admired some of the man's writings on the threat to the environment by technology--which many, including journalists for the NYTimes who commented on the same Unabomber literature, have done. Many have compared his views, in fact, to Al Gore's. But to suggest--as you do, and do periodically--that Williamson admired the man for the murders committed--is calumny, pure and simple. I am no great fan of the bishop--but neither do I cotton to the kind of filth you are peddling.

[ultima ratio]

He was not an admirer of the Unabomber--another piece of slander. He admired some of the man's writings on the threat to the environment by technology--which many, including journalists for the NYTimes who commented on the same Unabomber literature, have done. Many have compared his views, in fact, to Al Gore's. But to suggest--as you do, and do periodically--that Williamson admired the man for the murders committed--is calumny, pure and simple. I am no great fan of the bishop--but neither do I cotton to the kind of filth you are peddling.