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.”

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.

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 ).

* 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.

I will grant it seems authoritative to the layman-

I think you downplay the significance of the motu proprio. Traditionalists will adhere strictly to Pius X's motu proprio concerning sacred music, but ignore completely JPII's Ecclesia Dei. This is another example of the cafeteria catholicism I have pointed out in times past.

Pius X was not in conflict with his own papal legal system. Dei Ecclesia Adflicta, on the other hand, contradicts Canon Law--and it is the latter, after all, which determined the actual status of the Archbishop. Unfortunately, for those who hate the SSPX, the canons grant exceptions to penalties and the penalties themselves, including latae sententiae excommunication, are dependent for their validity upon the conscience of the subordinate in an act of disobeying a superior, including the Pontiff. It states explicitly that in a state of necessity, the subordinate incurs no penalty if he disobeys. Even if the individual only wrongly believed this--and Archbishop Lefebvre had no doubt this was the case--then he incurred no penalty. This is simply the law, and it is papal law, whether the Pope latter mischaracterized the situation in a letter or not. You, like a lot of others on this site, wrongly believe the letter itself had excommunicated Lefebvre. But it most certainly did not. Had the Pope wanted to personally excommunicate the Archbishop, he would have used the alternative method--i.e., he would have called a tribunal. This he did not do.

The next time you think popes don't make mistakes, you might consider the postconciliar Vatican's staunch support for the UN...

The Catholic Church has always been international in it's outlook. It's historic support for the UN is in keeping with it's commitment to peace. The UN is imperfect like all human institutions and the Church has fought hard to influence it where it could.

It's interesting that you take this position because I think it is revealing. It exposes the different mindset between Rome and the extreme traditionalists. Where Rome is willing to get it's hands dirty, working with the sinners of the world, associating with the sinners of the world, and confessing that it's members are sinners too, the extremist's seem to propose a more isolated approach. The extremist's would disavow themselves from anything that reeked of iniquity, including, and especially the Church of Rome that passed to them their faith. They would prefer to be untainted by the world the Lord has placed them in. I think that interesting, and definitely something Jesus had something to say about.

If the Pope thinks this, it's no wonder he sided with Saddam's buddies recently.

And you deny calumny?

Using your own logic, I presume you believe it is worse to disobey the Pope than to profane the Blessed Sacrament.

No, I would retreat from such logic. I am just pointing out the seriousness of papal disobedience. It is a grave offense to break one's vow to the pope as the archbishop did, and it is a mistake for a serious Catholic to ignore the admonitions of the Holy See. I apologize for having created any confusion.

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.

I did not suggest that our wisdom advanced. I suggested that our response might be more pronounced, were the church to adopt a less achronistic approach. You are removing the Holy Spirit from the equation every time you rely on the political explanation. Are not Protestants part of God's plan. Is it a bad thing to want to attract them to the sacraments? Was Ecclesia Dei really about politics? Could it have not been a sincere desire to retain unity in the church and bring about correction and amendment on the sinner? You always like to thicken the plot. Faith in God's church and in Jesus need not be so complicated.

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

Boy, if I shared your talent for brevity, I'd save a lot of time. My only variance is that I am outraged by the way they say it.

What calumny? I said the Pope has sided with Saddam's buddies. By this I meant France, Russia and Germany who supported the dictator for decades even as he slaughtered his own people. Do you deny the Pope has sided with them--or that they were Saddam's buddies?

And by the way, as long as we're on the subject of moral obtuseness, what excuse do you give for JnPII's mild response to Castro's recent atrocities and crackdowns--so mild as to enrage even his own Vatican bureaucracy? When does a tyrant merit more than a mere tut-tut? Notice how Tariq Aziz got the red carpet treatment but Bush got the cold shoulder--something was sorely amiss there. Do you suppose the Pope is losing it? At the least he has a tin ear for knowing when to express a minimal degree of outrage. He might have at least pretended the long-suffering people of Cuba deserved a little better after putting up with Castro for fifty years. Reminds me of the papal response to the priest sex abuse crisis. Pretty ho-hum if you ask me--the victims weren't even mentioned, not even in passing, not even to wish them well.

Finally, what do you make of Paul VI's remark that THE UN, of all bodies, is the "best hope of the world." One might have thought, being a Pope and a Catholic and all, he might have said Christ--but silly me, I forgot that would have been a remark more appropriate to the Church of BEFORE Vatican II--we traditionalists are so naive...

Do you deny the Pope has sided with them--or that they were Saddam's buddies?

Both. I deny that the pope's reasons were identical to even one of the numerically unprecedented coalition of the unwilling. I would deny that Saddam had any buddies, and for you to imply that he did, and that the pope sided with them is calumny. None of the countries you list were allied with Iraq; none worked for an Iraqi victory. All believed that the same goals that the U.S. proposed in Res. 1441 could be achieved through less destructive means. That the pope shared this wisdom only adds to my respect for him.

Nonsense. Ecclesia Dei was political primarily. How do I know? Because traditionalists had been clamoring for an Indult for years and their pleas fell on deaf ears. The Indult only came about after the refusal of Archbishop Lefebvre to destroy the traditional priesthood--which brought about a crisis with Rome. It was only then the Pope had a sudden epiphany and extended a limited indult in order to split the movement. But it was grudging and very qualified.

As for the Church's adopting a "less anachronistic" approach, this cry is the height of modernist gall as well as stupidity. Why do modernists always want to be treated as special? This is the case in the arts as well and it has resulted in an elitist class of connoisseurs cut off from the ordinary people--exactly as with modernist liturgists. The modernist mind always demands a huge break with the past, whether it be in art or architecture or theology. The change with what went before and had organically evolved must be abrupt and radical--to highlight the specialness of the modernists themselves.

Why do you imagine the Church needed the kind of radical break with the past that transpired after Vatican II? Was this not the height of arrogance? And what has the trade-off with modernity been except a huge loss of faith and endless scandals?

Chirac was LITERALLY a friend of Saddam's. They worked closely together for decades. It was France that built Iraq's first nuclear reactor--the one bombed preemptively by Israel. And it was France that blocked Bush in the UN and all attempts to resolve the crisis with Saddam diplomatically by forcing the regime into exile.

It was against this background, and precisely when Bush and Blair were trying to persuade France and Russia to go along with a second resolution, that the Pope decided to receive Tariq Aziz and give him stature and credence while undermining the US. Like France and Russia, the Vatican fueled and stoked the peace marches that were gathering all across Europe and the Muslim world. It was the Vatican that charged the US with coveting Iraqi oil--as if the US were as cynical as France and Russia--and itself. It gave little credence to Bush's promise of a war of liberation.

Meanwhile Saddam was cutting off tongues and pushing people feet-first into giant shredders. He had done this for thirty years. There are mass graves all over Iraq. Very few families have survived without losing someone. But this apparently counted for very little with this Pope.

It is a grave offense to break one's vow to the pope as the archbishop did, and it is a mistake for a serious Catholic to ignore the admonitions of the Holy See

The offence is consecrating bishops against the will of the Pope, an act which denies that the Pope is the head of the College of Bishops. There is no circumstance that can give rise to a "necessity" for consecrating bishops against the will of the Pope.

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.