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.

[ultima ratio]

1. Look, had the Pope wanted to personally excommunicate Archbishop Lefebvre, he would have done so by calling a tribunal--which is the normal procedure in the case of a schismatic prelate. He didn't because he dared not risk giving the Archbishop a forum to plead his case. The list you recite of excommunicatable offenses are automatic--latae sententiae. The Pope's letter merely announces the penalty that had already occurred. Nor does it mention the exception Canon Law itself allows. I will grant it seems authoritative to the layman--but surely no more so than the Pope's own Canon Law which provided the exception the Archbishop evoked.

2. The Pope in his letter is simply mistaken. He says nothing about the wish of the Archbishop to preserve Catholic Tradition from extinction. He is instead implying that disobedience always involves schism--a desire to thwart his authority, which is not always true. A child who disobeys his parent does not thereby deny parental authority and wish to leave the family. The notion is on the surface absurd, considering the Archbishop's piety and reverence for the office of the papacy itself. The Archbishop established no new religion, taught no new doctrine, usurped no one's jurisdiction, and never denied the Pope's authority as the Pope wrongfully intimates. He simply disobeyed--for what he thought was good reason--because the Church was in crisis, its leadership bent on destroying Tradition.

3. The letter is not infallible. It mistakes disobedience for schism and even worse, it is politically motivated. The move against the traditional seminary at Econe was an attempt to destroy the last bastion of traditional priestly training. And this was done, remember, at a time when most of the seminaries in Europe and America were simultaneously stewing in dissent and corruption--about which the papacy did--and does--absolutely nothing. The letter sounds authoritative because it is a papal letter, but popes may act unjustly like anyone else. In this case JnPII erred by not considering the full weight of his own Canon Law and his own provision for exception and by not allowing the Archbishop to publicly defend himself in a tribunal. He also erred in his judgment to exstinguish the Econe which alone in the world was preserving the traditional priesthood.

4. In fact, the Holy See has used the act of disobedience as a pretext for punishing traditionalists. This is demonstrated by the double-standard it consistently applies to those prelates who routinely disobey by pushing the modernist agenda, none of whom have ever even been charged with disobedience. The double-standard is blatant and a mark on this Pontiff's record which he now wishes--understandably--to erase. But it will not be that easy. The men he opposed did so out of principle--out of a desire to adhere to the Catholic faith even in the face of a willful Pontiff--and they are not likely to surrender one iota of that faith for the sake of a spurious reconciliation. So it will be up to Rome to show it understands the situation and acknowledges the old faith. The recent Encyclical on the Eucharist is a good start--though it is decades late in coming.

[ultima ratio]

I'm glad you don't care--but you did besmirch the SSPX by associating it with Nazism. This is the kind of unfair remark that gets bruited about like gospel and creates a mental image that has no bearing on reality. These are good priests. They are dedicated men. They preach the Gospel. They are serious about the Mass and Catholic Tradition. They suffer unfair persecution. Saying that some of them collect Nazi memorabilia or admire the Unabomber (Sinkspur) is a smear, pure and simple.

[Aloysius]

I never saw the items and do not have them counted out... There was such a collection

How do you know there was such a collection if you never saw them? Strange that you were sure they were there, but you never saw them and you have no idea whose office they were in. You have no credibility.

[Aloysius]

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.

Using your own logic, I presume you believe it is worse to disobey the Pope than to profane the Blessed Sacrament. Sounds like a pope-worshiper rather than a Catholic.

[ultima ratio]

The next time you think popes don't make mistakes, you might consider the postconciliar Vatican's staunch support for the UN, that bastion of corruption and intrigue which just voted to put Cuba on the Human Rights commission--chaired by Lybia. Paul VI, forgetful of Christ, called the UN "the best hope of the world". JnPII goes even further, saying the UN "has the historic, even momentous, task of promoting this qualitative leap not only by serving as a center of effective mediation for the resolution of conflicts, but also by fostering values, attitudes and concrete initiatives of solidarity." --If the Pope thinks this, it's no wonder he sided with Saddam's buddies recently.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

pope-worshiper

How protestant of you! Keep repeating this too. Throw it in their faces every opportunity just like the "reformers" did! Atta-boy!

[ultima ratio]

You say this: "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."

This is the essence of Modernism--to believe our age is qualitatively different, that because we advance by means of technology, our wisdom also advances. But this is not the case--as a cursory glance at modern history itself would suggest. The idea that the same Church which survived the Roman Empire, the Crusades, the French Revolution, the First and Second World Wars, must now--in keeping with the times--suddenly revolutionize its doctrines and practices--is quintessentially foolish, as we now are coming to see. We are not a different "race of people", as you suggest, merely because we fly faster and can access the internet. We still suffer the effects of original sin. We still lust after forbidden fruit, we still feel envy and jealousy, we still steal and deceive.

Moreover, the assumption that the present approach of emphasizing the Word during Mass is, as you say, "more intellectual" is errant nonsense as anyone familiar with Patristics or with the Scholastic movement would testify. The change in emphasis was made primarily to attract Protestants, not to appeal to our Catholic intellects. The preconciliar Church itself, in fact, had always insisted on the marriage of reason and faith, and it had always affirmed the need for adjustment and change--but never for revolution. What you are claiming, therefore, is the modern sin of Pride--the idea that because we live in the present time, we are somehow a lot smarter than those who went before--and it is no wonder contemporary fruits are so bitter--pederasty, apostasy, widespread abandonment of the faith, none of which is evidence of wisdom or high intelligence.

[ultima ratio]

You say, "In short, so what? That the Church changes emphasis without changing doctrine is not a big deal."

It is a very big deal. It violates the Council of Trent which specifically proscribed the communal meal emphasis.

[Aloysius]

How protestant of you!

I'm not the one who goes to "mass" where we are greeted by a "worship leader" and sing "on Eagles Wings" and receive Holy Communion in the hand from a woman in a tight pants suit who has hair shorter than your average US Marine, and where we climb all over the pews to shake each others hand DURING THE HOLY SACRAFICE OF THE MASS.

Keep talking about protestants and reformers - maybe if you repeat it enough, you can rationalize your culpability in the destruction of the Greatest Thing This Side of Heaven.

[ninenot]

So St.Mary's, KS (pace Aloysius) is NOT an SSPX site?

[ninenot]

Well, YOU named names. Look in the archives of Fidelity magazine and you will find the article which makes the claims. All I know is what I read.

[ninenot]

Of course, the Church has decided to emphasize "meals" at the expense of the Sacrifice.

I think you're going over the line a bit. The NO still refers to 'sacrifice,' clearly--and NOT to 'meal.'

[ninenot]

...while at the same time, Ratzinger has openly fretted about "meal-theories" being pushed into the liturgical discussion.

Frankly I am VERY sympathetic with what the SSPXrs have to say--but not too sympathetic with the way they say it.

[ultima ratio]

Not at all over the line. The sacrificial structure has been destroyed. The Offertory has been dumped in favor of the Jewish prayer before meals. The communal meal structure has been imposed. The whole notion of expiation has been eliminated.

[ninenot]

Yeah, well, most who know me say that I am "imbalanced," although it may refer to something other than FR posting.

[Aloysius]

Which is why your posts are more balanced. Viva la difference.

Like spreading unsubstantiated rumors about Catholic priests collecting Nazi memorabilia? That's about as balanced as the New York Times.

[St.Chuck]

I've always responded to the secular evolutionary types by asking them to demonstrate how the increase in the murder rate (e.g.) can be a sign of 'progress.'

Delicta quis intelliget?

I am only suggesting that the Church was responding to a different world, as it has always done. The results of that response, like any other response to changing circumstances the Church has made in it's long history, would be, by man's standards, less than stellar. The much ballyhooed Council of Trent didn't appear to improve the situation concerning the status quo either.