Replies

I do not attend Mass at a Society of St. Pius X chapel, but at a parish in undisputed communion with the diocesan bishop. However, I do share many concerns with SSPX members about the state of the Church.

The Mass of Pius V, mandated at the Council of Trent, and celebrated until Vatican II, when Paul VI promulgated the Novus Ordo (The New Order) Mass.

The Tridentine Rite was not mandated at the Council of Trent, which closed in 1563, but in Quo Primum, St. Pius V's papal bull of 1570. The Tridentine Rite was a codification of the existing Roman Rite as it had been celebrated, with few changes, from the 6th century.

There are many SSPXer's here who will tell you that the Novus Ordo is bastardized and illegal, since Pius V said the Tridentine Mass was to be celebrated for "time immemorial." ` They also don't like the Novus Ordo because it's in the vernacular language, the priest faces the people, and a host of other changes from the Tridentine Mass.

Archbishop Lefebvre never denied the sacramental validity of the Novus Ordo Missae. Celebrated with the proper intention, it is a valid Mass. But it is so structurally flawed that it is extremely difficult for a priest to celebrate it with the proper intention.

The priest facing the people was never mandated by Rome, even for the Novus Ordo. However, it marks a significant change in understanding the Mass. When the priest and people face the same direction, it is clear that they are all facing God, sharing in the same sacrifice at an altar. When the priest faces the people, he is turning his back away from Christ in the tabernacle to face the people in sharing a meal around a table.

Latin is still the normative language even of the Novus Ordo. As a dead language, the meanings of words no longer change and thus it is no longer subject to misinterpretation. Moreover, the use of a single language at Mass means that all Catholics, whatever their mother tongue, could go to any church in the world and understand the Mass.

Moreover, since very few people can ad lib in Latin, it prevents the flagrant liturgical abuse that priests can make by ad libbing changes to the words of consecration, thus invalidating it.

However, many of these practices which arose after Vatican II--mass in vernacular languages, Communion in the hand and under both species to the laity, priest facing the people--were in fact those carried out by the Protestant Reformers to deny the Real Presence and the sacrifical element of the Mass in favour of a symbolic celebration of a meal. For that reason alone, these changes are contrary to Catholic faith.

No Pope can bind another Pope on matters of liturgy, so the Novus Ordo is the manner of celebrating the Mass used today.

Quo Primum specifically established the Tridentine Rite as the Rite of the Mass for all time.

The Pope, speaking ex cathedra, is considered infallible when he pronounces on matters of faith. The Mass is the sublime expression of the central truth of the Catholic faith. Therefore matters of liturgy are matters of faith, to which Popes can bind their successors.

The SSPX left in a huff in 1987, ostensibly over the Tridentine Mass, but really over the fact that its members didn't accept Vatican II.

Partially true. Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated along with the four bishops whom he consecrated in 1988, to assure the continuation of the apostolic succession of bishops faithful to Catholic tradition who could in turn ordain priests to offer the unchanged and unchanging sacraments of the Church.

Vatican II was not a doctrinal, but a pastoral council. Therefore, its teachings are not infallible, nor do they otherwise bind Catholics in conscience. A Catholic may therefore question the wisdom of Vatican II, but this does not make him heretical or schismatic.

We can tell a tree by its fruits, and the fruits of Vatican II can be seen in the great loss of faith, vocations and fidelity to the Church's teachings among the laity, and the misdirection and apostasy of much of the priesthood, religious, and bishops.

All other councils were noted for the growth in faith and piety of the laity, priests, and religious which followed them. Vatican II stands out as a glaring exception so far, but we may need another generation before its fruits, if any, emerge.

The Tridentine Mass is permitted today, but only with special permission from the bishop.

As Quo Primum could not be abrogated, a priest doesn't need the permission of the bishop to celebrate it. If a diocesan priest in charge of a parish were to decide, for the good of his parishoners, to stop celebrating the New Mass and sacraments in his church, the bishop could not stop him.

However, it may be more prudent in some circumstances to seek permission.

Therefore matters of liturgy are matters of faith, to which Popes can bind their successors.

They are not. Liturgy is not a matter of faith, and has never been formally defined as such.

This is so riddled with falsehoods as to be laughable.

Communion in the hand can, in fact, be traced back to Jesus Himself. Did the apostles stick out their tongues to share in the Bread Jesus gave them?

The Last Supper WAS a meal. The Real Presence in the tabernacle is the same Real Presence as is celebrated in the Mass.

The Tridentine Mass is a manner of celebrating the Eucharist. The Novus Ordo is as well.

The SSPX is simply not going to turn back the clock and force the reimposition of the Tridentine Mass.

Those who wish to celebrate it, should do so.

"We can tell a tree by its fruits, and the fruits of Vatican II can be seen in the great loss of faith, vocations and fidelity to the Church's teachings among the laity, and the misdirection and apostasy of much of the priesthood, religious, and bishops."

Is this true? I was under the impression that the RC church was the only Christian Church that was not in decline. Speaking only for myself, I have doubts that I would have begun the process of converting to Catholicism if it had been solely in Latin.

I "enjoy" an occasional trip down to a nearby parish where they are permitted to celebrate the Mass in Latin. From the bi-lingual missalette it seems to be pretty much the same. Architecturally the altar is against the front wall, whereas in our normal (I mean the one we are members of) Church the Altar stands between the Priest and the congregation. In both cases the Priest does not put his back to the altar unless he is holding the Consecrated Host.

I am generally quite moved by the reverence, piety, and adherence to the forms of the Mass by the attendees of the Latin Mass. And while not at all dismayed that they frequently seem to be "in this world but not of it", I have on one occasion been beset by a woman who held forth at great length on the Popes betrayal, and the kowtowing to Protestant and Jewish groups to come up with a form of the Mass that would not offend said groups (Vatican II).

She seemed a bit disloyal to me, but as I am not yet even a Neophyte, I obviously have much to learn, If the Pope says its so, who are we to dispute it?

Loyalist,

Archbishop Lefebvre never denied the sacramental validity of the Novus Ordo Missae. Celebrated with the proper intention, it is a valid Mass. But it is so structurally flawed that it is extremely difficult for a priest to celebrate it with the proper intention.

Absurd. A valid Mass has the proper form and matter, as with any other Sacrament. Read the Summa on what the proper form and matter are, and it is clear the Novus Ordo is valid, and is not difficult to say properly.

For that reason alone, these changes are contrary to Catholic faith.

Re read the relevant sections from Trent. They are not contrary to the Catholic faith, they were judged as imprudent in the 1500s. You could say they are imprudent now as well, but that is not nearly the same as contrary to the Catholic faith.

Quo Primum specifically established the Tridentine Rite as the Rite of the Mass for all time.

Then, while Quo Primum said no changes ever to the Mass, why did the Popes immediately following change the Mass?

The Pope, speaking ex cathedra, is considered infallible when he pronounces on matters of faith. The Mass is the sublime expression of the central truth of the Catholic faith. Therefore matters of liturgy are matters of faith, to which Popes can bind their successors.

The liturgy touches on matters of faith, certainly, but it is a matter of discipline. Some comments from Mediator Dei, Pius XII, 1947:

22. As circumstances and the needs of Christians warrant, public worship is organized, developed and enriched by new rites, ceremonies and regulations, always with the single end in view, "that we may use these external signs to keep us alert, learn from them what distance we have come along the road, and by them be heartened to go on further with more eager step; for the effect will be more precious the warmer the affection which precedes it."[25]

and

49. From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised this right in matters liturgical. It has organized and regulated divine worship, enriching it constantly with new splendor and beauty, to the glory of God and the spiritual profit of Christians. What is more, it has not been slow--keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact--to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to add what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage.[47]
50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized. This will explain the marvelous variety of Eastern and Western rites. Here is the reason for the gradual addition, through successive development, of particular religious customs and practices of piety only faintly discernible in earlier times. Hence likewise it happens from time to time that certain devotions long since forgotten are revived and practiced anew. All these developments attest the abiding life of the immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ through these many centuries. They are the sacred language she uses, as the ages run their course, to profess to her divine Spouse her own faith along with that of the nations committed to her charge, and her own unfailing love. They furnish proof, besides, of the wisdom of the teaching method she employs to arouse and nourish constantly the "Christian instinct."

And

58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification. [50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.

I could go on, but you get the point. The Pope has complete discretion to change all but the divine parts of the Mass. And even those, the Church has always recognized different rites with variations in those parts, so you cannot contend that one specific phrase must be used, its just that those parts cannot be done away with.

Those dioceses and orders most enraptured by the spirit of Vatican II aren't getting them.

Exactly what is this spirit of Vatican II? You sound like a liberal, pinning all kinds of novelty on VII, none of which it supports. That liberals try to hijack the Council and have had some success distorting what it said is no excuse for a traditional Catholic to help them.

While they have done more damage to the Church than any other group of heretics since the Arians, they have not produced a generation of clerics who share their revolutionary fervour.

Perhaps Vatican II is shining through at long last.

, we may be sure that the Vatican II revolution will be decisively defeated.

Exactly what is this revolution? What in the Vatican II documents do you pin this on?

Dominus Vobiscum

patent +AMDG