CAN WE ATTEND THE INDULT MASS?

Society of Saint Pius X ^ | June 1993 | Father Van Es

[sinkspur]

It follows from the same principle that the singers in church have a real liturgical office, and that women therefore, being incapable of such an office, cannot be admitted to the choir

Well, Pius X might be a saint, but that doesn't mean he can't be mistaken. In the case of women in a choir, he was.

He also smoked cigars, fine Cubans in fact.

Pius XII posited to a group of Jesuits that smoking might be sinful.

My head, she is spinning!!!

[american colleen]

And remember, Vatican I was explicit in stating that the Holy Spirit did not protect papal novelties from error.

And what guides us, as Catholics, to have the grace to know from "papal novelties" (which would be what, btw?)?

Martin Luther thought he knew by the grace of God.
John Calvin thought he knew by the grace of God.
Richard Hooker thought he knew by the grace of God.
John Knox thought he knew by the grace of God.

Ya know what I mean?

[sinkspur]

As for my own quarrel with Williamson--who has his charm in person, by the way-

Dick Williamson, the cleric with a jones for Ted Kasczynski, aka the "Unabomber."

Dickie boy's got some heroes...yes, he does!

[ultima ratio]

What is your point? The man is a charmer in person. That's just a fact. This doesn't mean I'm a fan.

[ultima ratio]

A novelty obviously means whatever is new--not handed-down. Most innovations are innocuous--but some are doctrinal and liturgical and constitute important breaks with tradition which should set off alarm bells among the faithful. Assisi was one example. The new doctrine on the Jews is another. Both are radical departures.

Remember, Luther and Calvin and Hooker and Knox were introducing novelties, not sticking with tradition. So your lumping Catholic traditionalists with them is a poor analogy. Rather we resemble the followers of Saint Athanasius who defied his pope to follow Catholic tradition rather than the Arianism that ruled the Church of his day.

[NYer]

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.

Not your post, this post, the entire post.

No, Colleen .... I am the uncharitable one for posting this

QUESTION 10
CAN WE ATTEND THE INDULT MASS?

from the Official SSPX.org web site.

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.

That statement, it would seem, is more charitable than this post.

Thank you sitetest for clearly stating the facts.

There is a whale of a difference between the musings of this or that hierarch of the Catholic Church, and this document, which is actually from the Frequently Asked Questions part of the official SSPX site. This is the official position of the excommunicated SSPX.

In reality, this "article" surfaced during a google search on the Indult Mass. It was my first ever visit to the SSPX web site. And, as sitetest noted, this is still an active link.

[NYer]

The real solution is to have them co-exist and see which rite eventually survives.

They have coexisted for 20 years now ... Indult (FSSP) Tridentine Rite and Indult Novus Ordo Rite - both sanctioned by the pope.

Are you also suggesting that there is a difference between the mass celebrated by the SSPX and FSSP? Do you disagree with the SSPX position that By a priest who celebrates the Novus Ordo Missae on other days of the week or at other times, cannot celebrate the Tridentine mass?

[Desdemona]

I know that women were not permitted in the choir under the old Mass. That's why castrati still existed. In fact, most upper voice liturgical music before 1900 was written for castrati.

I would hope that this would be remedied, but I would rather a complete ban of women in choirs, than just the great music. And yes, that would limit me to the stage.

Strange irony when you think about it.

[Desdemona]

They have coexisted for 20 years now ... Indult (FSSP) Tridentine Rite and Indult Novus Ordo Rite - both sanctioned by the pope.

They coexist, but are not treated equally. The Latin Masses are not promoted at all and are disdained quite a bit. At least here. I know many people who have gone down to St. Agatha to Latin Mass for the first time and have not cared for it at all, and those who refuse to go down there because they remember pre-Vat II.

Eventually, the more pious rites are going to survive. The entertainment aspect of the Mass will go away, simply because those who want that at Mass are having far fewer kids than those who want piety. And those of us who were raised by the guitar devotees and grew up, are pulling no punnches about getting out of that rut.

The changes aren't going to happen overnight, like the first time. It will be gradual, but it will happen.

[ultima ratio]

The FSSP is at present in chains. The minute it began to thrive, Rome cut it off at the knees, firing its duly elected superior general and some key seminary theologians, and forcing its members to accept a Vatican-appointed superior and the concelebration of the Novus Ordo. This has had a seriously demoralizing effect and is compromising its commitment to the old Mass. This is why SSPX has been so wary of "regularizing" its status. It needs its "irregular" status to preserve tradition as a living reality intact until a later day when it may emerge from isolation in freedom. Otherwise our memory of Catholicism as it truly existed in the past will have been lost.

Right now if you attend an SSPX Mass you are not only going back forty years, but you are going back to the days of ancient Rome. There is virtually very little difference. It is like running a newsreel from 500 A.D. That busy altar boy, for instance, now serving in the sanctuary is doing so precisely as he did fifteen hundred years ago in the west with very few rubrical or textual changes, all of them minor. This connection to the past is already fading in the FSSP where some priests are beginning to offer Communion in the hands and even using altar girls. Only the SSPX remains the glue that binds the past and the present together.

[sitetest]

Dear narses,

I'm being quite logical. The website in question is the official website of the United States headquarters of the SSPX. Here is what is noted at the bottom of the first page:

"This site is designed and maintained by the SSPX United States District Headquarters"

I remember how many folks here yelled and screamed about the report of the subcommittee to the committee that was put up on the USCCB website, a group truly without fixed authority. It wasn't in anyway put forward as official policy of the Universal Church, or even of American bishops. Just the musings of a bunch of mediocre theologians with sinecures. The FAQs on the SSPX website are presented as THE answers to critical questions, and the link to them is PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED on the home page.

But to compare further, when folks were upset about the minor link on the USCCB site, THEY TOOK THE ARTICLE DOWN!

Furthermore, this answer to question 10 was not written in 1993. It may draw from an article written in 1993, but the question and answer may be of later vintage. It is doubtful that question 10 and its answer were put on this website in 1993, as the website likely did not exist in 1993. Very few folks had websites, comparatively speaking, in 1993. So, this FAQ, with this offensive Q & A, was put together sometime WELL AFTER 1993.

Then, Question 5, which states in no uncertain terms that no one may attend the Mass of Pope Paul VI was written after 1997, since it quotes primary source material from 1997. Question 15 refers to a 1998 publication. Several other questions refer to publications in the mid-1990s. So, we are talking about a part of the official website of the SSPX in the US that has been updated at least through the late 1990s. And of course, in other parts of the website, there are even later updates. It is disingenuous to claim that this material is an old, forgotten sideshow.

The fact that it has been left there is not an indication that it is forgotten. No, such a prominent internal hyperlink is not left on a website because it is forgotten, but rather because it still is the official policy of the organization sponsoring the website.

If the USCCB had left up the article to which you took objection, AND MADE A PROMINENT LINK TO IT, would you now be saying that the passage of time was proof THEY DIDN'T MEAN IT ANYMORE? That's idiotic.

But aside from that, let's return again to your ill-thought comparison with Rev. Weakland. If Rev. Weakland has denounced the Tridentine Rite in terms equally horrifying as the SSPX has at this website denounced even the indult Mass of the Roman Catholic Church, I am unaware of it.

Read what was written. Catholics are not to attend even the INDULT Mass because:

It is said by a priest who celebrates the Novus Ordo Missae on other days of the week or at other times;

It may be using Hosts consecrated at a Novus Ordo Missae.

These are outrages, blasphemy against Jesus Christ. The author of these is a blaspheming heretic.

Has Rev. Weakland suggested that no one may legitimately attend the Tridentine Rite? Has he said no one may attend a Mass said by a priest who sometimes says the Tridentine Rite? Has he denounced the Sacrament confected at the Tridentine Rite Mass? No? Then you have no argument, no standing for complaint, if you do not denounce the SSPX for these outrages against God.

But even if Rev. Weakland had, indeed, said these things, the pope has said otherwise. I know it is difficult for the schismatic mind to understand this, but if a bishop says "A", and the pope says "not-A", then it is "not-A" that is true, and we are to ignore "A".

And we know that our Holy Father has said only good things about the old rite. This effectively nullifies any competing opinions spewing forth from the mouths of deposed archbishops.

Now, if you can show me where Mr. Fellay, the leader of this pack, has denounced what is said at the website, again, you have the makings of an argument. If you can show me where he has specifically said that the Indult is a wonderful thing, that it helps further his own common goals with the Vicar of Christ, that it is a worthy Mass for SSPX to avail themselves of (all these things are similar to remarks made by the Supreme Pontiff about the Tridentine Mass), that it is perfectly wonderful that the hosts used at an Indult Mass may have come from a Mass of Pope Paul VI, then you have an argument.

Until such time, it is you who have lost the use of the faculty of logic.

That the pope deigns to even talk to these people while they insult him and the Catholic Church in this manner is a testament to his patience, indulgence, and mercy.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear Desdemona,

"The Latin Masses are not promoted at all and are disdained quite a bit. At least here. I know many people who have gone down to St. Agatha to Latin Mass for the first time and have not cared for it at all, and those who refuse to go down there because they remember pre-Vat II."

If I understand your comment correctly, it is telling. You are saying that many people go to the old rite Mass at this church, St. Agatha, and they don't like it. Others, remembering the old rite from before Vatican II, have no desire to go down to the old rite Mass even once.

What you are saying is that many people that you know prefer the Mass of Pope Paul VI. That means that, at least for many people, it is not that the old rite has not been given the opportunity to attract others, but rather that it has had the opportunity, and has failed.

That's very interesting.

I would prefer that the indult be more generally available, but your post supports my own opinion, which is that most folks will prefer the Mass of Pope Paul VI.


sitetest

[american colleen]

Re: FSSP And Communion In The Hand Question from Anonymous on 02-14-2003:

Many of us take refuge in the Tridentine Mass to get away from many of the sometimes abused practices found in the Novus Order (Communion in the hand, giggling altar girls, armies of Eucharistic Ministers storming the altar, laughably bad hymns). Why on earth would anyone go to the Tridentine Mass and demand to receive Communion in the hand (an agenda perhaps)? They can go anywhere at anytime to a plethora of Novus Order Masses and boogie in the aisles with the liturgical dancers if they choose. We accept that. We may be lucky to have only one Sunday Tridentine Mass in a remote location (bad neighborhood) to attend, but hopefully free from all the aforementioned abuses. Why would anyone want to come to the Tridentine Mass and impose themselves and their pop theology on that particular community? When I attend the Novus Ordo (the other six days of the week), I expect to see and I accept the above practices. Those of us who love the Tridentine Mass do not impose the Tridentine ritual practices on the Novus Ordo communities. We don't demand Latin, altar boys only, or a ban on Eucharistic Ministers. It is my understanding that an FSSP priest is required to give Communion in the hand to those who demand it since the indult for Communion in the hand (and altar girls and Eucharistic Ministers) supercedes the indult for the Tridentine Mass. Is this true? We in the Tridentine community pray for an Apostolic Administration with our own bishop to ensure we are not forced to accept practices that have done so much damage to the Church. Thank you for letting me vent.

Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 02-14-2003: As I tried to explain, I don't know what is required by this or that Indult. Going only by the law of pastoral charity, it would seem to me gravely unjust to refuse Communion to someone who simply follows a lawful practice he is used to, when on a particular occasion he chooses to attend an Indult Mass, from whatever motive.

Its not the priest's job to read the communicant's mind but to dispense the sacraments, the grave scandal of public sinners excepted. By the exact same logic Rome has prohibited in the strongest terms (the threat of ecclesiastical sanctions) the refusal of Communion to those who kneel when their country's norm is standing, as it now is in the US. If priests who celebrate the Indult Mass or priests of the FSSP do not want to give Communion in the hand, then they need to explain to the congregation beforehand that Communion on the Tongue is the norm for this rite. Certainly a newcomer or a visitor should be happy to comply ("when in Rome..." as the saying goes). However, when all is said and done, if someone puts out their hand, and a gentle word by the priest does not cause them to put out their tongue, then I see no grounds for refusing the Sacrament. On the contrary, I think it would be gravely sinful to do so.

Finally, unlike giggling altar girls, armies of EMEs and bad (I will assume theologically bad and not just musical poor) hymns, Communion in the Hand has a legitimate history in the Church in the first millennium. It cannot be condemned theologically and canonically without sitting in judgment of the Magisterium, past and present. It is always necessary, therefore, to distinguish between the practice in itself, and its execution in a particular time. Since today it has proven rife with abuse and irreverance, I would be personally happy to see the option ended. However, as long as it is allowed, we must accept that others may choose it. If they receive irreverently (e.g. not taking care whether Particles remain in the hand), then that is on their consciences, as it would be for anyone who receives Communion irreverently. I would bet that most irreverence at Communion time is interior, in the heart poorly disposed to receive our Lord because it is distracted by what others are doing. Bodily posture IS important, but it is less important than interior disposition.

[ultima ratio]

One caveat regarding my last post. I am aware the issue of communion in the hands is controversial precisely because many believe this was the way the early Christians received Communion. But one of the evolutionary aspects of the Mass has been the shift to Communion on the tongue. The further we got from apostolic times, the more the need was perceived for greater external reverence as a show of faith in the Real Presence. Tradition always gradually evolves in this way and is never absolute or static. But neither is it ever radical and revolutionary, as Cardinal Newman pointed out.

Communion on the tongue also underscores the separateness of the priest who, by his ordination, alone has the power to consecrate. This is an essential Catholic teaching. Under the pretext of returning to a more primitive practice, therefore, the Novus Ordo in actuality undermines the Catholic faith by erasing this distinctiveness. In other words, it returns to the primitive practice--in order to reduce outer signs of respect and to merge the sacrificial priesthood of the ordained with the common priesthood of the baptized--thus serving a different, non-Catholic doctrine. This is only one of many differences between the old Mass and the new in this contemporary struggle for Catholic identity.

[ultima ratio]

My post to NYer on Communion in the hands was written before you posted your citations. It is pretty relevant, I think.

[ultima ratio]

There is nothing wrong with what the website says. To sum it up, it says attendance at the Novus Ordo is dangerous to the faith, which is true. It does not say the Mass is invalid which would be false. And everything depends on the understanding of the faithful themselves as to what's actually going on--on their interior motives. After all, most attend the Novus Ordo out of obedience, which is not culpable.

Rembember, the SSPX is addressing highly informed Catholics for the most part who have returned to the old rite out of dismay with the new. Their awareness of Catholic theology is often a good deal more acute than that of the average Catholic who obediently attends a Novus Ordo in order to fulfill his/her Sunday obligation. Most of these average churchgoers have no consciousness of the enormity of the theological implications of the new Mass nor that they are, in fact, gradually being protestantized by such attendance. They want comfort and quickness for the most part, with a minimum of fuss.

Those who attend the SSPX have a different awareness and thus would be culpable if they attended a Novus Ordo knowing what they know. However, exceptions to this are, in fact, made and are officially approved. For instance attendance at the Novus Ordo for weddings and funerals in order to keep peace in one's family. This is a routine practice with most traditionalists and a matter of prudence and common sense.

[ultima ratio]

You make a valid point on this one issue of not attending the Indult Mass. I think these arguments put forth by SSPX are pretexts to retain attendance and support by wavering churchgoers for whom any traditional Mass will do. I think the arguments are specious--as are the reverse arguments against attending Masses at SSPX chapels on the grounds that SSPX is schismatic. This was the kind of division that was inevitable after the break in 1988. Many in the SSPX think of the FSSP as deserters in the postconciliar war for the soul of the Catholic Church. So the accusations fly back and forth on both sides.

[narses]

Many parish and diocese websites have been posted here with heterodox and even ehertical claims made, that doesn't make the Church itself heretical. You may choose to believe what you will, but the fact remains that attending Mass at some places, even when valid, may be dangerous. That is certainly what you yourself have said about attending SSPX services. Twenty years ago I saw services that would take your breath away. That was when the "Spirit of Vatican II" and expirimentation was reigning strong. I recall a "Mass" where local Protestants and Rabbis where called in to "assist", for example. A "guitar" Mass that included items in addition to Bread and Wine to be Blessed and distributed so casually that ANY orthodox Catholic would get up and leave, and many did. Your "logic" fails because it is based on the false postulate that "FAQ"'s on a website represent "official" teachings of an organization. As for their "removal", I will certainly as that they be removed, I suspect others here will too. I am not a member of the SSPX but I have corresponded with them many times and always received rational answers, so perhaps these FAQ's come down.

[St.Chuck]

With some research I could show you quotes from "respected" hierarchs who damn the Tridentine Rite as vehemently.

Really? They call the Tridentine evil? I will remain incredulous without substantiation.