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 Romes 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 priests 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. |
Ooohh... this is sooo hard... on the one hand, I have you, a renowned internet nobody, self-appointed interpreter of canon law and all-round fine Papal critic of little recongnition. On the other hand, I have the Apostolic See... whom shall I choose to believe?... Hmmmmm.... Oooohhh this is sooo hard.... my faith lies in the balance... Which shall it be... some obscure micro-pope on a web-forum, or the Chair of Peter?... ooohhh it is so hard to decide... I totter between one and the other, pondering... The Successor of Peter a few things going for him... while "ultima ratio" or whatever his name really is... soooo hard to decide.... Ok, I choose the Pope. Therefore 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)
I never suggested that Williamson admired Kasczynski for his murders; I suggested he admired him.
So Williamson's a Luddite too?
Beacuse he's the only prominent member of the SSPX clergy in the US. Also, you and your ilk are a dime a dozen. One can spot you and your intentions a mile away.
No, I am not confused. I went back to my original post. I may not have been clear. This was before Ecclesia Dei. In essence, any priest who celebrated the Old Rite publicly was in schism. To attend was, in their minds, a mortal sin. After all, one who attended these Masses was, at the very least, considered to be thumbing their noses at the Church. Do we not see much of the same attitude by some posters toward the SSPX? Fortunately, Rome has slowly been clarifying Her stance concerning the Tridentine Rite, and it has been positive.
It can and certainly DOES remove a good deal of very useful text from what the Old Rite has.
You are saying some of what I am trying to express. It was late and I was trying to be brief. Let me see if I can clarify it somewhat.
By teaching a quasi-catholic faith, I am referring to the change of emphasis that has occurred. Three examples: 1)The de-emphasis of the Sacrificial Nature of the Mass to the increased emphasis of the Memorial Meal, 2) The de-emphasis of the sinfulness of man and his need for God's mercy to the increased emphasis on the assurance of being a redeemed people, and the worst, 3) the de-emphasis of the Real Presence to the increased emphasis on the Presence of Christ in the Liturgy of the Word and in the community.
The NO, as established by Paul VI, CANNOT in itself be "foreign to" the ancient teachings of Catholicism
I agree with you completely. What I said was that the teachings of the NO was foreign. The examples above are 180 degree shifts in the teaching of the Catholic Church. Yes, we have always believed that the Mass was also a Memorial Meal, that man has been redeemed, and that Christ is present during the reading of the Word and in the assembly, but these were always secondary aspects, and not given the prominence that is seen today.
What is the basis for such strong objection to a shift in the teaching of the Catholic Church. Do you not trust that the Holy Spirit was guiding the Church?
Consider that between the time of St. Pius X and Paul VI human knowlege, human development, literacy, and technology had increased exponentially. Civilization went from the horse and buggy to the jet age, from gas lights to universal electricity, from relative isolation to access to the world via radio, telephone and television....and the world shrinks even more as we type to one another through these modems. Why wouldn't the Church change? How could it not? It was ministering to an entirely different race of people. It is perfectly sensible to accentuate the Word to a literate and educated people. It was no longer necessary to appeal to the senses; a more intellectual approach could be taken in hopes of deepening man's understanding of God's love for His noblest creation, and man's responsibilities to that Creator.
Let us also not forget between the time of Pius X and Paul VI the unprecedented amount of carnage that occurred during two world wars and in the vicious oppression that was imposed in locations around the world. Wouldn't an increased emphasis on the community be perfectly fitting in a world culture capable of creating such destructive enmities? Do you not believe that the Holy Spirit was guiding His Church? Why do you not?
The history of the Church is one of adaptation and assimilation, and always.....always triumph. Saecula saeculorum. Let not your personal preference for and personal experience of the Tridentine mass jaundice your understanding of Christ's Church. No one faults you for that and all would approve of your devotion through that rite. But to condemn the normative rite, despite it's recent implementation, despite the widely publicized abuses, despite your personal preferences, despite the implied alterations in emphasis, is to condemn the real Power of the Holy Spirit that guides His Church.
The preconciliar church taught that a Catholic was excommunicated for the following sins:
1.Apostasy, heresy, or schism
2.Publishing, reading, or keeping certain forbidden books
3.Publishing books of Scripture without due permission.
4.Profaning the Blessed Sacrament
5.Pretending to say Mass or to hear a conffession when one is not a priest
6.Falsification of relics; distributing false relics; knowingly exposing false relics for the veneration of the faithful
7.Trafficking in indulgences
8.Affiliation with Masonic or similar associations
9.Violation of papal cloister or enclosure
10. Laying violent hands on any cleric or religious
11. Abortion
12. Dueling
13. Attempting marriage before a heretical minister
I find it interesting that schism is listed number one, while abortion is number eleven, not to downplay the severity of such an abomination, but to highlight the importance of disobedience to the pope. For with the matter at hand (and in perpetual hand)it was disobedience to the pope that the progenitor and his named followers of the SSPX were excommunicated. ( Yes, I know you will deny it, but heck, it's there for everyone to see, and only the invincibly schismatic will buy into your Johnny Cochran refutations).
In fact, Lefebvre, and his bishops might well be considered Excommunicatis Vitandus, "which is the technical title given to an excommunicated person when the excommunication is personally and expressly inflicted by the Holy See, when it is made public, and when the decree states that the person is vitandus,to be avoided. Such persons are not allowed to assist at any Church services and are to be avoided by the faithful even in profane matters if possible."
Woah dude. Let's review Ecclesia Dei.
3. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. 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.
(4) c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.
I am impressed that these two paragraphs from Ecclesia Dei meet the criteria of the Excommunicatus Vitandus.
1. It is personally and publicly inflicted by the Holy See, and it says to cease support for that movemnet in anyway, which could reasonable interpreted to say that avoidance of that person is required. You undermine and downplay the significance of this pronouncement by the Pope. Even by the standards of Pius XII, Pope John Paul II was not kidding around. Lefebvre's disobedience was akin to performing an abortion, and those that associate themselves with the other Vitandi's are in some serious trouble.
Well, that's the way your advisers interpreted Paul VI's suppression of the Old Rite, but they were wrong.
Even in Milwaukee under Rembert Weakland there was an Old Rite Mass celebrated VERY publicly by a priest 'in good standing' with the Diocese (the pastor of a parish) regularly after the Old Rite was suppressed.
Although the priest was asked to retire, (and he did) the Mass continued to be PUBLICLY celebrated, still under Rembert's reign, and there was a tacit agreement: no advertising, no problems.
Too bad you went through all that sturm und drang. Your advisers were at the very least ignorant...
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.