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.

[narses]

The official position of the SSPX is this:

The head of the Society of St. Pius X said that he had no doubt of "the sincere wish of Pope John Paul II to reach an agreement." However he reiterated that traditionalists would insist on two conditions: every priest must have the right to use the pre-conciliate liturgy, and the excommunications that were imposed on traditionalist leaders in 1988 must be lifted.

The fact that a post like this is being made on the same day as this OFFICIAL position of the SSPX is posted ought to show the lack of charity involved by those opposed to reconcilliation.

[sitetest]

Dear narses,

The USCCB may be an organization of American bishops, but it has no actual ecclesiastical standing. The comparison doesn't stand.

Further, you know that the document about evangelizing Jews was not even an official USCCB document, but rather the musings of a subcommittee of a committee, and was taken down rather hastily in embarrassment by the bishops.

Additionally, though the cited execrable article was written in 1993, it is still maintained on the official SSPX website. Here is the link:

http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q10_indult.htm

To get to this evil insult against the Catholic Church, one need merely go to www.sspx.org, click DIRECTLY FROM THE HOME PAGE to the FAQ page, and then click to this question. It is an active, current link, not found in some archive of dead letters, but presented as the current thinking of the schismatic excommunicated SSPX.

Do you think that a similar article condemning the Tridentine Rite, if found on the Vatican website, could be naysayed away by saying, "Oh, well, that was written ten years ago."?

It would be the bitterest irony that a group so taken with their delusional defense of "tradition" would wave away their evil words by citing the advanced age of the missive. That is disgusting.

The fact that some hierarchs have not embraced the Tridentine Rite is not pertinent, here, narses, and you know it. The Church herself, through the actions of the Supreme Pontiff, contradict the actions or words of a hierarch here or there. When Mr. Fellay openly condemns these words, you will have some grounds to your argument. When he has them stripped from his schismatic website, then you will have an argument.

In the meanwhile, the facts still stand, this is abhorrent, and to sugar-coat it is equally morally disgusting.

As to "healing the wounds", there will be no "healing" without truth. And the truth is that the SSPX promotes hatred of the normative Mass of the Roman Catholic Church. And any who seek to paper that over join in their crimes.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear narses,

"The head of the Society of St. Pius X said that he had no doubt of "the sincere wish of Pope John Paul II to reach an agreement." However he reiterated that traditionalists would insist on two conditions: every priest must have the right to use the pre-conciliate liturgy, and the excommunications that were imposed on traditionalist leaders in 1988 must be lifted."

Big deal!

This pronouncement by the excommunicated ones does nothing but reiterate their demands.

Nowhere in this pronouncement by the schismatics is there a word of recognition of the goodness of the normative Mass of the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, the lack of goodwill from the former Catholics in no way exposes any lack of charity on the part of those who expose these people for their evil actions against the Bride of Christ.

sitetest

[ultima ratio]

Look, some of this is not representative of the Society as a whole--mostly it reflects the thinking of Bishop Williamson who is somewhat extreme. Not that we pay much attention to some of this. Our chapel has women singing in the choir all the time--in fact, ONLY women! Most of the priests I know merely want a return to traditional Catholic doctrines and practices, not the Taliban-like rigidity proposed by Williamson's crew.

[narses]

The SSPX has one simple official position, I posted it above. The website referenced btw, is no more "official" than the USCCB is. Abp. Weakland's remarks (see the article I just posted) are his, and while they are representative of many in the hierarchy, they are NOT the official teachings of the Church. The SSPX is simply an order of the Church, when it takes an "official" position, it does so by means of it's Superior General. His words are posted above.

I repeat -- those who denigrate any valid Rite of the Church are doing a great evil. They as idividuals are, not the organizations they belong to.

[american colleen]

ultima, love ya but it drives me crazy when you make generalizations like this: "You have been led to believe the pope is the faith." In fact, I believe this statement would have been more true pre Vatican II and probably quite common in my grandparents (and their's before them) day.

Saying something like that effectively puts you in the drivers seat, is snobbish and presumptuous and something that has been fully formulated in your own mind with no evidence provided to support the statement whatsoever.

You disagree with the validity of Vatican II, particularly the Mass of Paul VI.

The Church is not stagnant.

[american colleen]

The fact that a post like this is being made on the same day as this OFFICIAL position of the SSPX is posted ought to show the lack of charity involved by those opposed to reconcilliation.

If you are refering to my post, it was made with the stated codicil "Given these postings from this particular SSPX site, if they aren't modified and they are representative of the SSPX, I cannot ever see a reunion, sadly."

I do not see a lack of charity in my post when the SSPX site cited on this thread calls the Novus Ordo Mass "evil."

[american colleen]

Thanks, ultima.

I appreciate you clearing this up. This site is extreme and I am pretty conservative.

[narses]

Do you think that a similar article condemning the Tridentine Rite, if found on the Vatican website, could be naysayed away by saying, "Oh, well, that was written ten years ago."?

Yes. See my post on Abp. Weakland. The first response was "Archbishop Weakland is retired"!

The issue is this, if the SSPX was trying to supress the NO that would be one of the conditions. It isn't. Just as the SSJV has reconcilled, so will the SSPX. The ugly rhetorical excesses of folks of ill will on all sides is deplorable, as is the regretable pride of many of those of good will unwilling to see past the beam in their own eye to work together for reconcilliation. His Holiness is being sniped at from every side, see http://unavoce.org/news/2003/TLM_in_Rome.htm for an example. Even at ST. PETERS his clear instructions are ignored by those who denigrate the Tridentine Mass.

[narses]

Not your post, this post, the entire post.

[ultima ratio]

Wrong. I never questioned the validity of either the Council or Bugnini's Mass. I do think they were unwise and harmful, however--not the same thing.

My point with NYer was in reference to his comment that he follows the Magisterium and thinks this makes him a better Catholic than someone who sticks with tradition when it is opposed by the Pope. Sorry, but if the Magisterium is out of line with past teachings and tradition, it cannot be infallible and will lead its followers down a blind alley.

As for these FAQ postings lifted from an SSPX website--they have no more authority than a Q&A in your local diocesan newspaper. These are not official positions. In fact, if you study the official documents of the Society, you will find they are marked by balance and good sense.

[narses]

I think you are right, these FAQ's sound like Bp. Williamson more than anyone else. In any event, they certainly are not the "official" position of the SSPX or Rome would not be negotating with them at the level and fashion She is.

[narses]

And they have an author, an author who I have never heard of who wrote this ten years ago. They are his opinions and they are reprehensible.

[ultima ratio]

This is no argument. There are plenty of bishops who hate the old Mass with equal intensity. The real solution is to have them co-exist and see which rite eventually survives. Let the Lord sort it out.

[sitetest]

Dear narses,

Rev. Weakland spoke only for his diocese, not for the Church. His opinions had been publicly rebuked by those above him on more than one occasion. Sometimes his opinions were rebuked and his name was left out, when our Holy Father and Cardinal Ratzinger have expressed themselves favorably about the Tridentine Mass. Sometimes, Rev. Weakland was rebuked rather directly, as with regard to his destruction of his cathedral.

Show me where the official website of the SSPX in the US is rebuked by Mr. Fellay for these opinions expressed. This website says that the normative Mass of the Roman Catholic Church is EVIL. Show me where Mr. Fellay explains that the normative Mass is good, and Catholic, and worthy.

Then you have an argument. All else is cover-up of evil.


sitetest

[narses]

You are not acting with logic. Websites live for a long time. This FAQ was penned a decade ago. The SSPX has more than once acknowledged the validity of the NO Mass. That alone repudiates this "FAQ". Fr. Nes spoke for himself and whoever was running the US SSPX website 10 years ago, not the entire Society.

Here is what the the Superior General of the SSPX, H.E. Bishop Bernard Fellay said of the Pope in the interview that started the current round of talks: "If he calls me, I go. Right away. Or rather, I run. This is certain. Because of obedience. By filial obedience with regard to the head of the Church."

[american colleen]

Wrong. I never questioned the validity of either the Council or Bugnini's Mass. I do think they were unwise and harmful, however--not the same thing.

OK, sorry, but I thought I'd read posts of yours that question whether Vat II was a legit council. I could be wrong, and you know best what is in your own mind ;-)

My point with NYer was in reference to his comment that he follows the Magisterium and thinks this makes him a better Catholic than someone who sticks with tradition when it is opposed by the Pope. Sorry, but if the Magisterium is out of line with past teachings and tradition, it cannot be infallible and will lead its followers down a blind alley.

NYer is a chick, not a he!!! Where did NYer say that following the Magisterium makes her a better Catholic than someone who sticks with tradition? Isn't the Church a "three legged stool?"

I guess the Orthodox thought the pope opposed tradition as well. Did you know that tradition at one time had the priest on the altar behind a curtain - hidden from the view of the people in the pews? Was changing that putting the pope on the other side of tradition, and therefore, was he in error?

Extrapolating on your last sentence, if you think the (current) Magisterium is out of line with past tradition and teachings, then you believe that Jesus Christ has abandoned the Church, wouldn't that follow?

And thanks once again for setting me straight on the original SSPX post. I'm glad to know that this post is not representative of the entire SSPX.

[ultima ratio]

You must make allowances for a certain degree of bitterness and anger that existed ten years ago and which has subsided considerably. As in any family squabble, there is as much hurt and wounded feelings as anger; and as much yearning for reconciliation as resentment. Clearly there is a lot of mutual misunderstanding and need for trust before we move on. But our very differences illustrate how wrong it was for the Liturgy Nazis to have imposed the New Order as ruthlessly as they did, even now wrecking whatever still remains of the Catholic tradition. What they did was tantamount to murder. It was extremely destructive and wrong.

As for my own quarrel with Williamson--who has his charm in person, by the way--it goes back a bit. My wife and I particularly resented his take on the role of women--who apparently are expected to be seen and not heard by him. Whether or not he wrote those perspectives cited above, there are enough people in the SSPX who think like him to be an annoyance. But believe me, they are the exception. I much prefer the attitude of my own chapel priest--good- natured, realistic, friendly and good-humored. Besides this, he is a dedicated scholar and would give any one of us the shirt off his back. He travels three states by car every single Sunday in order to say Mass and gets to our chapel late in the afternoon. Yet he hears confessions patiently and stays to schmooz after Mass is over. A prince of a cleric.

[ultima ratio]

"Extrapolating on your last sentence, if you think the (current) Magisterium is out of line with past tradition and teachings, then you believe that Jesus Christ has abandoned the Church, wouldn't that follow?"

Not at all. The Magisterium is not the whole Church. And remember, Vatican I was explicit in stating that the Holy Spirit did not protect papal novelties from error.

[sinkspur]

This one really bothers me. If the SSPX considers the N.O. to be a valid Mass, to deem Hosts consecrated at a N.O. Mass not acceptable seems downright blasphemous.

Wow! This is new news!

So the SSPX considers hosts consecrated at a NO Mass to be invalidly consecrated?

Rather than establish a separate rite, we should build a fence around these people so they can be in their own private zoo!