Why cite SSPX practice as an example to be considered?
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 686
    I continue to be perplexed that SSPX is mentioned casually and naturally as a version of Catholic practice to be considered. Their Masses are not valid.* End of discussion. This happened in my question of how Vatican II applies to the EF. It is definitionally of no interest as they reject Vatican II and the Papal liturgical reforms that followed. But in general, certain commentators include their practice as somehow “something to consider.” It’s not.

    With all due respect, please acknowledge their standing in the Church. Please read what Benedict had to say.

    Kenneth

    * Quite oddly, I knew full well the wording was wrong. 10 or 15 years ago, a Jewish reporter friend who covered the Church pointed out that the problem with SSPX was not liturgical, but that there was "a line of validly ordained bishops." I even told myself don't use the word, but I did and didn't notice. i apologized for that. Normally, I would correct it with a note, but it led to useful clarifications, so I left it as was and the embarrassment is on me.


    http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html

    The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.

    In light of this situation, it is my intention henceforth to join the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" – the body which has been competent since 1988 for those communities and persons who, coming from the Society of Saint Pius X or from similar groups, wish to return to full communion with the Pope – to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes.

  • Gamba
    Posts: 82
    Is it any different from saying that the Anglican choir at Westminster Abbey can provide a good example of how to sing Tallis? Or saying that the way St. Clement’s in Philadelphia (Episcopal) properly pre-heats their charcoal can teach us something about proper care and feeding of the thurible? Or that a Lutheran organist’s treatment of a particular hymn is exemplary? Or that Dr. Martin Luther King gave a good sermon? Or that the five-times-daily prayer of ordinary Muslims is a starting point for personal devotion, not an aberration?
    Thanked by 1BGP
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,314
    Kenneth, it is a complete mistake to say that Masses offered by SSPX priests are "not valid", so your argument starts off on the wrong foot.

    The term "valid" relates to sacramental effect, not to lawfulness. While their ministry was completely unauthorized and unlawful in the past, the Church has never once suggested that their Masses are not sacramentally valid. (It has been thought that their confessions and marriages were not valid, because those require lawful faculties for validity; but the Church has not actually stated this, to the best of my knowledge.)

    Instead of issuing pronouncements like "end of discussion", you ought to be more careful and precise.

    Are you unaware of the measures taken in recent years by the Church to give authorization to the SSPX for certain types of ministry? They are now authorized by Pope Francis to hear confessions; they are authorized to conduct weddings; in a few rare dioceses, SSPX priests have been invited by bishops to celebrate Mass publicly on a regular basis; and the superior of the SSPX has been appointed by the Pope to act as an ecclesiastical judge in certain cases.

    So now we're in a period of gradual reconciliation and gradual authorization of SSPX ministry. There is no benefit in pretending that relations are still at their worst, as in 1989.
  • Aristotle EsguerraAristotle Esguerra
    Posts: 1,130
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 686
    I find my attempts at response lack charity and merely reinforce what I don’t like about this forum. I apologize if my wording was inexact. It was not, however, wrong. (Later note: yes, it was. The POINT was not wrong.?


    I will agree with Gamba: if references to SSPX are placed on the same level as those of other “separated brethren,”. I am A-OK with that.

    Benedict’s response remains in force and has been repeated by Francis: the difference is doctrinal. We should be more at home at a Novus Ordo with wan music than at a beautifully performed TLM at an SSPX chapel. We should consider faithful Catholics who don’t have our aesthetic preferences as more our brother and sisters than those who share our aesthetics but are separated from Rome.

    Kenneth

    Here is the letter on marriages. I will hand Papa Bergoglio one thing: he is a master at threading the needle.

    http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/04/04/pope-francis-paves-way-for-recognition-of-sspx-marriages/
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 686
    PS I read several lengthy Canon law articles on the matter and the author(s) concluded that the matter is very fuzzy—exactly because of what you said, Chonak—-but however beautiful the Mass, it is not...legitimate. It does not fulfill your Sunday obligation to go to an SSPX Mass. Will you accept that?

    Kenneth
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,314
    The clearest statement I've seen from Ecclesia Dei was in 2003, and it said that one could lawfully meet the Sunday obligation by attending an SSPX Mass, but the writer (Msgr. Camille Perl) advised against doing so as an ongoing practice. EWTN quotes from the letter here.

    We should note that relations have improved since 2003. In my opinion, there may still be reasons to be somewhat cautious about involvements with the SSPX at a local level in some places. That is, some priests might have a somewhat rebellious mentality, and (more likely) some lay followers may have that, too. On the other hand, SSPX itself has purged priests (and even one bishop) for such hard-line, anti-Roman attitudes.

    Given the path that they and the Holy See are on, we can expect that over time those reasons for keeping one's distance will decrease and, God willing, eventually end.

    In any case, those concerns are not a reason to ignore the good qualities exhibited in SSPX Masses and processions when we see genuine care for the correct and devout observance of the Roman rite.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 73
    Attending Mass at a SSPX church or chapel on a Sunday or day of precept does indeed satisfy the canonical obligation to assist at Mass. Validly ordained priest? Check. Valid Mass in any Catholic rite? Check. That's all that is required.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 6,139
    Chonak offers evidence that attending an SSPX mass will fulfill one's Sunday obligation but that one should not make a regular practice of doing so. How is this different from attending an Orthodox mass in an emergency, but not as a regular practice? Both have valid orders. Both, being separated brethren, are in the same severed relationship with Rome.

    I can't help but agree with the tenor of Kenneth's argument.
  • madorganist
    Posts: 397
    Chonak offers evidence that attending an SSPX mass will fulfill one's Sunday obligation but that one should not make a regular practice of doing so. How is this different from attending an Orthodox mass in an emergency, but not as a regular practice? Both have valid orders. Both, being separated brethren, are in the same relationship with Rome.
    You should reread chonak's earlier response, quoted here for convenience.
    Are you unaware of the measures taken in recent years by the Church to give authorization to the SSPX for certain types of ministry? They are now authorized by Pope Francis to hear confessions; they are authorized to conduct weddings; in a few rare dioceses, SSPX priests have been invited by bishops to celebrate Mass publicly on a regular basis; and the superior of the SSPX has been appointed by the Pope to act as an ecclesiastical judge in certain cases.

    So now we're in a period of gradual reconciliation and gradual authorization of SSPX ministry. There is no benefit in pretending that relations are still at their worst, as in 1989.
    Now, I know of instances where Orthodox and other Eastern schismatics are allowed to celebrate Liturgies in Catholic churches on a regular basis, but these are in no way presented as being Catholic services. They are not authorized to hear the confessions of Catholics, to officiate at the marriages of Catholics without a dispensation, or to adjudicate matters of Catholic canon law. Catholics can be present at non-Catholic worship with good reason but may not participate. This is divine law, not some arbitrary Church rule. Rome has acknowledged that Catholics may not only participate in SSPX Masses but even go to Communion.

    To the OP, to say that SSPX Masses are invalid is absolutely wrong. Period.
  • Incardination
    Posts: 448
    ...I really hate the rancor this forum can degenerate into...


    Disagreement <> rancor or lack of charity, just as opinion <> fact. When anyone expresses a viewpoint strongly or as an absolute I think common sense would indicate that disagreements are likely to be expressed equally strongly. Perhaps something to consider.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,314
    For Jackson's question: the situation with the Orthodox churches is different, because there is an acknowledged schism between them and the Holy See. A divine liturgy celebrated in an Orthodox church does not seem to meet the canonical requirement for a Catholic priest; so that condition for the Sunday obligation is not met.

    On the other hand, that acknowledged schism doesn't seem to be in effect everywhere. In the Middle East, there is de-facto intercommunion between the Eastern Catholic Churches and the corresponding Orthodox Churches, including even concelebration, so the Rome-SSPX relationship is not the only part of the world in which a vague process moving toward reconciliation is underway.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,314
    By the way, I certainly don't want anything I wrote to be perceived as rancor by anyone: just a few years ago, I would have written exactly in the point of view Kenneth expressed.

    In the '90s and 2000s, there were lots of good reasons to be concerned about practices among some SSPX priests that really seemed to express schismatic attitudes; some writers made a strong critical case against the Society because of it. But things have changed on both sides, and it's good news.
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 686
    So I was wrong on the Sunday obligation and I apologize.

    I remembered as I was going to sleep that I had warned myself not to use the word “valid” and then I did—resulting in clarity for others but making myself look bad. So I did not do well all around, despite all my reading. But it answers my question—and helped me see things better.

    Kenneth
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 686
    Yes, but now that I’m rereading what now looks to me badly written and uncharitable (on my part), the point does remain—-two Popes have said clearly that the problem with SSPX is doctrinal and that was what I was getting at—-why are we quoting them about the proper implementation of a Mass when their beliefs are at variance doctrinally with the Church. The rebellious attitude used to be all over their main website and listed things that that the Vatican needed to fix before they agreed to rejoin. This was say in 2003. I’d have to check and I will bet it has changed. But that attitude—these things need to change before I come back—is not the mark of a good Catholic.

    So let me rephrase it: do you feel somehow that SSPX remain good Catholics, that somehow these are just overly enthusiastic souls who “get” liturgy, but an obedient Catholic who does his or or her best to live up to the Commandments and Church teaching and does not share your aesthetic somehow “doesn’t get it” and is a “lesser Catholic?” Because that is an attitude I have encountered over the years.

    That’s the opposite of what an obedient Catholic should feel—and here I do mean our emotions should be brought into conformity with Church teaching.

    I apologize again for my rancor in the first post.

    Kenneth
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 686
    An important point from that letter, which you link Chonak.

    His second question was Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass and we responded stating:

    2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 686
    And now I have checked the SSPX website and that list is more or less still there. https://sspx.org/en/about/major-concern

    Kenneth
  • Ted
    Posts: 141
    Kenneth:
    You are confusing validity and liceity. There is a fundamental difference between a sacrament that is valid and one that is licit. The former concerns sacramental efficacy (ex opere operato), while the other concerns the canon law of the Church. All the sacraments except for confession and marriage were always valid at the SSPX. For over a year now, Pope Francis has authorised the SSPX to validly administer marriage and confession, so all the sacraments administered by SSPX are now valid.
    Because the SSPX Mass is valid, it DOES fulfill your Sunday obligation. However, because it is illicit, you ought not to fulfill your Sunday obligation at the SSPX except under certain circumstances. Would it be a mortal sin, say, to travel an hour to hear Mass at a SSPX chapel, rather than going to an amateurish pop music based Novus Ordo Mass 5 minutes away that drives you crazy, and where Catholic doctrine is rarely taught? That certainly depends on your intention, but it is also something that could be discussed with your confessor.
    As for doctrine, even Pope Francis raised the problem that some ideas in the Vatican II documents are open to debate, so the SSPX are not alone in raising objections here. Archbishop Schneider has even gone further in proposing the idea of having a syllabus of errors concerning the interpretation of Vatician II documents. After all, why should the Council documents be interpreted mainly from the Modernist standpoint as they have been for the past 50 years?
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 686
    Ted, thanks for the correction but I admitted the error and corrected the first post.

    I understand that the hypothetical case you mention might not be so hypothetical to some. I will admit that part of the problem for me is in interpreting the experience of the average Catholic outside my diocese. It is very hard to find liturgical irregularities in the Archdiocese of Washington, though I know people have experienced some--irregularities here meaning as defined by the Holy See and our Archbishops, not according to an ideal I might have of a properly done Mass. I may not like the music that the parishioners have come up with, but I am also fairly certain I will not encounter anything objectively working against the focus of the Mass.

    However, I must disagree that the VII documents have been interpreted from a modernist perspective entirely or even mostly. We all know people who do that. In contrast, St John Paul II systematically tied all of his teaching to the Tradition of the Church and to the Vatican Council. I am not fond of Archbishop Schneider--or perhaps his followers--and he seems to have wandered into hazy territory here. The 1992 Catechism is exactly such a document as he proposes.

    And the issue is exactly interpreting Vatican in obedience to the Church or in a disobedient spirit. The key issue is the one I raised a little later here, and not in the first post: is a person alienating himself from Communion with Rome and with his fellow Catholics? If he is, then he is in error. (The priest from Ecclesia Dei said “sin.”)

    Kenneth

    http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19921011_fidei-depositum.html

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the kingdom!

    The approval and publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church represents a service which the Successor of Peter wishes to offer to the Holy Catholic Church, and to all the particular Churches in peace and communion with the Apostolic See: the service, that is, of supporting and confirming the faith of all the Lord Jesus' disciples (cf. Lk 22:32), as well as of strengthening the bonds of unity in the same apostolic faith.

    Therefore, I ask the Church's Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Jn 8:32). It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the Catholic faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.

    This catechism is not intended to replace the local catechisms duly approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan Bishops and the Episcopal Conferences, especially if they have been approved by the Apostolic See. It is meant to encourage and assist in the writing of new local catechisms, which must take into account various situations and cultures, while carefully preserving the unity of faith and fidelity to Catholic doctrine.
  • Kenneth,

    I am not a priest, so I can't be a member of the SSPX. I don't attend an SSPX Mass except under extraordinary circumstances (the last time being 8 years ago).

    Nevertheless, I should like someone to offer substance to this claim: that the differences are doctrinal because the SSPX doesn't accept Vatican II.

    Here's the question: what, which is doctrinally binding, is taught at Vatican II which is not taught previously in the other Councils or in Magisterial documents?

    This is why it matters: if I (hypothetically speaking) reject extraordinary ministers of holy communion or Ostpolitik or girl altar boys or the suppression of Prime..... What is doctrinally required in these things which I reject?

  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,036
    A dear friend who is a well known canonist argues that what separates the SSPX from the main body of Holy Mother Church is ecclesiology, not theology.

    It should be noted that the SSPX have used St. Peter's Basilica any number of times over the last 10 years.

  • NihilNominis
    Posts: 292
    To the OP:

    When it comes to the EF, they use the books in force in 1962 according to an interpretation of law in force in 1962. Thus, they do liturgically what a Motu community is trying to do; if they do something right, it is relevant and immediately applicable.

    If Rebuilt people, whom we are supposed to feel are "more our brethren" than the SSPX people, can reimagine Sunday Mass on the example of a non-liturgical megachurch service, why is it inappropriate to take cues from Christians using the same books we do, whose valid Masses fulfill our Sunday obligation?

    For goodness' sake, do you never sing Hark, the Herald Angels Sing?
    Thanked by 1Incardination
  • Ted
    Posts: 141
    Kenneth:
    One of the 3 problems that the SSPX has with the Council is on ecumenism. The contrast, if not outright contradiction, between Pius XI's Mortalium Animos and JPII's Ut Unum Sint which claims to be following the Council's views, is startling. Both are encyclicals, so both have magisterial weight. It has been convenient to dismiss this dilemma as a matter of discipline rather than doctrine, because Church discipline is changeable, but some do not agree, considering that for Pius it was blasphemy to unite with heretics. Even so, many Modernists would claim that a council has the right to change perennial Church teaching. So who has the right interpretation, and is it a matter of doctrine?

    My concern with Modernism, however, is mainly liturgical. The idea of active participation, the foundation of the post V2 reforms, was to elevate the role of man, particularly his reason, in the liturgy, something that derives from Enlightenment thinking upon which Modernism is founded. Of course, this issue of liturgy is itself disciplinary, so also changeable, although many neo-Modernists today would disagree.


  • madorganist
    Posts: 397
    And now I have checked the SSPX website and that list is more or less still there. https://sspx.org/en/about/major-concern
    Indeed it is. The key concerns of the SSPX are modernism, religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality, and liturgical abuses. Note that liturgy is last on the list. Is this a case of "last but not least," or are the concerns listed in order of importance? You decide.

    I really like a quote by Benedict XVI is the document you linked above, LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CONCERNING THE REMISSION OF THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF THE FOUR BISHOPS CONSECRATED BY ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE:
    Some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.

    If I had uncritically accepted everything I was taught by priests and religious educators - even if the confessional - I would profess very different beliefs than I actually do, for example:
    --The miracle of the feeding of the 5,000 was a miracle of humans sharing their food with others. (priest's homily)
    --I would rather enjoy the presence of God in my wife than in the Blessed Sacrament. (lay catechist who has since left the Church!)
    --Transubstantiation does not happen as soon at the priest has pronounced the words of consecration. (priest's RCIA lesson)
    --Indulgences are made up. (priest's RCIA lesson)
    --I accept about 99% of Church teachings. (priest's RCIA lesson)
    --The Mass is not for God, it's for the people. (novus ordo priest commenting on the TLM)
    --Jesus had a human body and a divine soul. (deacon's homily)
    --Don't tell me I can't talk about the role of women in the Church. That's exactly what Francis and especially Benedict have done. (priest's homily)

    The list could continue, but I think those examples should suffice to illustrate the point that modernism, other heresies, and sometimes a more generalized attitude of dissent and disobedience are alive and well. What do you want to bet that they'd have us believe the SSPX are the disobedient ones? Ha!
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,424
    The idea of active participation was certainly not an invention of Vatican II, or of Arbp. Bugnini. In fact, if you read Arbp Lefebrve's biography by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, you find that Arbp. Lefebrve was teaching the people in Africa to sing the Mass way before the Council. In fact, as somebody has mentioned elsewhere, the SSPX is noted in Europe (France and Germany) for the splendid way in which the people sing the Mass and fulfill the request made by Pope St. Pius X in Tra le sollicitudini, a request that continued on through Vatican II and beyond.

    Vatican II states that the people participate in the Mass in the role proper to them not because of any ecclesiastical concession, nor due to any hint of theological modernism, but rather based on their baptism which gives them a sharing in the royal priesthood of Christ.

    Having the people say or sing in Latin those parts of the Mass that pertain to them is not an idea that originated at Vatican II or thereabouts, nor is it an idea that Arbp. Lefebrve had the slightest problem with, nor was it something that has ever been an issue in the Church.

    As the then-Cardinal Ratzinger said, the Liturgical Movement which started out so nobly and prophetically, trying to teach people to take the role proper to them in the Mass by saying or singing in Latin those parts that pertain to them was, at a certain point, "hijacked" (this is the term of Cardinal Ratzinger). The reason it was hijacked and went off the rails was because, at a certain point, the leaders of the Liturgical Movement switched their priorities in favor of ritual reforms for ecumenical reasons in hopes of pleasing the Protestants.

    The real problem with the work of Arbp Bugnini is not that he wanted the people to say or sing the parts of the Mass in Latin, but that he wanted to, in his own words,"strip away" anything from the liturgy that was an obstacle to ecumenism. (cf. L'Osservatore Romano, March, 1965)

    That is why the then-Cardinal Ratzinger was so critical of Bugnini's work and, in fact, referred to it as "liturgy-by-committee", and something that "interrupted the centuries-long process of organic development in the liturgy.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,185
    I know many lay Catholics (and some priests) who have the exact same concerns as the SSPX. And these are people who only attend the O.F. Some, for example, have always felt uneasy about ecumenism, but didn't know why; others accepted everything post-concilliar without question, until they began growing in their faith and reading preconcilliar texts. It is somewhat difficult to learn the past of the Church, see today's problems, and when they started to manifest themselves, and not come away a "Crypto-Lefebvre-ite". And this is a result of changes and contradictions in ecclesiology, religious liberty, ecumenism, and theology; liturgy doesn't play that large of a role. These people are not schismatic: they accept the Pope, their bishop, and the New Coke, erm, Mass, but they do have these concerns; most of them balk when informed that their concerns are those of the "schismatic" SSPX, but since they are not concerns exclusive to the Society, I think it does mean that they deserve a clear answer, which we all do, and an end to the confusion. In fact, I know more ordinary, run-of-the-mill, Novus Ordo Catholics who are more "schismatic" than +Fellay.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 958
    Before the new Missal of 1969, there were several stages of introduction of the vernacular. FWIW I think I have read that Abp. Lefbvre was not opposed to this, and that when SSPX was formed it was other members who persuaded him that they should revert to the 1962 books.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 686
    Now that we have gotten under way, I’ll let the experts handle it. This list IS less rancorous than in the past.

    Two things: the proof about the need to recognize VII is provided in the letter from Pope Benedict, and public statements by the Holy Father. I am certainly well aware that Papa Bergoglio, as the Italians would say, loves saying many things, many of which seem incompatible. But this matter is clearly covered by his authority, so I would guess but not swear I am on safe ground citing him.

    And, Madorganist, I hope I do not detect what I have seen on this list before, that because one dissents from modernism, one must sympathize with SSPX. I certainly do neither. As I said above, pretty much take everything St JPII and XVI have to say on this, and I agree. And SPPX only looms large in discussions in places like this. Fr Martin, SJ, certainly affects a far wider number of people and I am no fan of his.

    I know of Traditionalist-sympathetic folks—say, Fr Scalia—whose understanding of things I can respect and find attractive. There is, however, a Traditionalist priest with some large number of followers who writes about three things: the liturgy, expensive vestments, and fancy food. It is hard to find anything related to the Gospel there, because it seems to be all about aesthetics. No “go, therefore.”


    But the discussion has gotten more fruitful, as I had hoped.

    Kenneth



    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 686
    I do have to ask, JulieColl, if that quote is a little selective. Ratzinger/Benedict explicitly preferred the New Order, because, if I recall correctly, “every part has its dignity.” Can you give a little more context? You make it sound as if he disapproves of the whole thing, and he does not.

    Kenneth
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • Incardination
    Posts: 448
    I agree with Julie in her post above (which I think is a continuation from the post that spawned this thread separately), but perhaps it would be good to observe a clarification. The ideal of active participation is focused on the benefit derived by those that participate, not on some idea that the Liturgy is, itself, somehow fundamentally changed by such participation.

    In the EF, there is no fundamental difference between the private Low Mass of a priest, a Low Mass celebrated with 10 people present who do not actively participate, and a Low Mass celebrated in a cathedral church in front of 1,000 who speak the parts of the dialog for the variety of prayers, with organ and choir singing motets with or without congregational assistance.

    None.

    Each of those examples above are of equal value in terms of being an act of praise and worship offered in the name of, on behalf of, and with the voice of ALL members of the universal Church. Each example is a Mass in the most complete sense, and is NEITHER diminished by lack of participation NOR enhanced by same.

    There is, it is true, a greater degree of honor and glory from an elevated Mass (Missa Cantata, Solemn High Mass, Pontifical High Mass) than from a Low Mass, but that is regardless of whether there is a liturgical choir per se or whether the congregation sing parts (or all) of the Mass. So there is, again, no fundamental difference between a Missa Cantata where the choir-alone sings vs. the Missa Cantata where the entire congregation of 1,000 sing the Mass.

    There are Protestant denominations that believe that whatever change occurs to the bread and wine through their service (be it significance or something more substantial) is entirely due to the belief of those that are present - that the affirmation of the congregation is the essence of such change. That has never been Catholic doctrine, which is why there has never been an issue with the celebration of the private Mass.

    I sometimes receive the impression that the Mass celebrated without participation is looked down upon in certain circles as being less complete somehow.

    As I said previously:
    I'm not promoting silent prayer during Mass any more than I would suggest that the EF requires "participation" (whatever that may mean for a given individual). I AM suggesting that the Faith provides for both Marthas and Marys.

  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 686
    We might say that … the liturgy was rather like a fresco [in the early 20th century]. It had been preserved from damage, but it had been almost completely overlaid with whitewash by later generations. In the Missal from which the priest celebrated, the form of the liturgy that had grown from its earliest beginnings was still present, but, as far as the faithful were concerned, it was largely concealed beneath instructions for and forms of private prayer. The fresco was laid bare by the Liturgical Movement and, in a definitive way, by the Second Vatican Council. For a moment its colors and figures fascinated us. But since then the fresco has been endangered by climatic conditions as well as by various restorations and reconstructions. In fact, it is threatened with destruction, if the necessary steps are not taken to stop these damaging influences. Of course, there must be no question of its being covered with whitewash again, but what is imperative is a new reverence in the way we treat it, a new understanding of its message and its reality, so that rediscovery does not become the first stage of irreparable loss.”1 Joseph Card Ratzinger Spirit of the Liturgy 7,8
    Thanked by 2JulieColl eft94530
  • mmeladirectress
    Posts: 509
    >>" the liturgy was rather like a fresco [in the early 20th century]. It had been preserved from damage, but it had been almost completely overlaid with whitewash by later generations" [...]

    you might say that, Kenneth, but I could never say that. Alas, your words remind me so much of what I heard from someone who had abandoned the Church and now considered himself an Anglican.

    From the time of Pius V's codification of the Latin Mass onwards (until the coming of the NOM, of course), Every. Single. Change. to the Roman Missal was spelled out on a page at the very front of every. single. printing.
    And there were not many such pages.

    I hope that you will take some time to look seriously at this piece of wisdom: Lex orandi, lex credendi.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,559
    The fresco was laid bare by the Liturgical Movement and, in a definitive way, by the Second Vatican Council. For a moment its colors and figures fascinated us.


    Uhhhmmmm....that's not a solid analogy. The Liturgical Movement and IIVatican did not, as it were, 'remove crusted barnacles' from the "pure Mass" of A.D. 50 or so. It actually removed those parts of the Mass at which Protestants balked.

    It has been said very often that the form of the Mass present in 1962 (the last of the old Tridentine form) had grown to what it was organically--unlike the "committee-written" Mass of IIVat. (One priest who worked on the IIVat Mass testifies that some portions of the text were written over cocktails....) B-16 hoped that using both forms of the Mass would lead to some sort of 'reform of the reform,' although that idea seems to have died in the last 5 years.


  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,424
    These are all valid comments with which I find myself completely in agreement. First of all, the Mass is not dependent upon the participation of the people, and I certainly don't look down upon anyone for the way in which they choose to participate at Mass.

    It is also true that Card Ratzinger absolutely thought there were positive aspects of the liturgical reform, and I don't deny that. However, he is clear in his writings about two major things in regard to the Mass:

    1) the essential criteria, as he calls it, of Vatican II, apply to both forms of the Roman rite. One of these essential criteria is that the faithful should be taught to say or sing in Latin those parts of the Mass that pertain to them.

    Cardinal Ratzinger, the best I can tell, was a great admirer of the early Liturgical Movement because it did much good: it brought about a revival of Gregorian chant, brought hand missals to the people and attempted to teach the people to pray the Mass, in the words of Pope Pius X.

    2) While recognizing certain positive aspects of the reform, Ratzinger is also very clear that the work of the Commission that carried out the broad principles in Sacrosanctum Concilium represented "a break in the centuries-long process" of organic development of the Liturgy.

    So, in the interests of fairness, I'm including a link to a number of quotes from then-Cardinal Ratzinger on the liturgical reform so people can judge for themselves what he said.

    My best interpretation of his words on the Liturgy are that he believed that at the time of the Council the liturgy had ossified in certain sectors of the Church, and people were not making the responses and singing the chant as Pope Pius X had ardently desired.

    However, the most illuminating example of this is the speech Cardinal Ratzinger gave on Oct. 24, 1998, on the 10th anniversary of Ecclesia Dei in Rome.

    However, I believe that his words on the liturgical reform also reflect the fact that he believed something went terribly wrong in the work of Arbp. Bugnini.

    He believed in continuity, and when Arbp. Bugnini said in L'Osservatore Romano in March, 1965, that he was going to strip away from the Liturgy anything offensive to Protestants, that was a warning bell that the reform might very well go in a different direction than the Council Fathers had voted for.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,424
    Cardinal Ratzinger's fresco metaphor, taken with this quote from his 1998 speech give a pretty clear indication that he did not believe the preconciliar liturgy was always celebrated in the ideal fashion:

    "On the other hand, it must be admitted that the celebration of the old liturgy had strayed too far into a private individualism, and that communication between priest and people was insufficient. I have great respect for our forefathers who at Low Mass said the "Prayers during Mass" contained in their prayer books, but certainly one cannot consider that as the ideal of liturgical celebration! Perhaps these reductionist forms of celebration are the real reason that the disappearance of the old liturgical books was of no importance in many countries and caused no sorrow. One was never in contact with the liturgy itself. On the other hand, in those places where the Liturgical Movement had created a certain love for the liturgy, where the Movement had anticipated the essential ideas of the Council, such as for example, the prayerful participation of all in the liturgical action, it was those places where there was all the more distress when confronted with a liturgical reform undertaken too hastily and often limited to externals. Where the Liturgical Movement had never existed, the reform initially raised no problems. The problems only appeared in a sporadic fashion, when unchecked creativity caused the sense of the sacred mystery to disappear."

    He goes on to make this remarkable observation:

    "This is why it is very important to observe the essential criteria of the Constitution on the Liturgy, which I quoted above, including when one celebrates according to the old Missal! The moment when this liturgy truly touches the faithful with its beauty and its richness, then it will be loved, then it will no longer be irreconcilably opposed to the new Liturgy, providing that these criteria are indeed applied as the Council wished."

    Lots more here.
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 715
    It's interesting that some people have such a dislike of Father Zuhlsdorf('s blog).
    I find that he writes many things relevant to Catholicism and the Catechism.

    I don't read his blog religiously, but many times when I have tried to find a clearer explanation of something to share with others, it is usually easily found in his writings.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,337
    From the time of Pius V's codification of the Latin Mass onwards (until the coming of the NOM, of course), Every. Single. Change. to the Roman Missal was spelled out on a page at the very front of every. single. printing.


    I have this discussion often with in-person traditionalists. Pius V did not do as much codifying as rewriting. The liturgy of the seven churches had disappeared by the time of Trent, and officially so thereafter. It's amusing how trads try to say the liturgy coming out of Trent goes all the way back to early times. Not a bad liturgy from Trent, but hardly authentic. The seven churches were more alike than different in the 4th and 5th centuries and the liturgies celebrated by Augustine, Patrick, and such were more like the eastern liturgies than the mass after Trent. Kind of like the Baptists who say they are New Testament Christians. Nice story, but not so.

    Don't even get me started on Vatican II. To shoot yourselves in the foot so thoroughly, one would think you belonged to an eastern church. LOL.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,424
    Next year is the 50th anniversary of the Novus Ordo.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,337
    Next year is the 50th anniversary of the Novus Ordo.


    Yep, hippie music and all still trying to be relevant.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,424
    "Sunshine on my shoulders makes me happy" . . .
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 686
    Mmeladirectress, one should never claim one’s faith is strong, so I will not say I won’t fall away—we do not know. So I will pray for your faith and you can pray for mine.

    However, it is a remarkable thing to me that you think I will become an Anglican because I adhere so closely to the teachings of St John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. I tried for a while to follow the new guy but he is a terrible writer, so I accept his leadership and pray for a return to recent form—-and not, say, Renaissance form, but the previous 100 years or so gave us as good a run as the Papacy has probably ever had.

    Kenneth

    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 686
    CCooze: why did you think I meant Fr Z?

    Kenneth
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 686
    Charles W—can you recommend a good history of the formation of the Tridentine Mass? I dislike the “Mass of the Ages” formulation. People who use it seem to be claiming a deeper understanding of liturgy than they seem to possess.

    Kenneth
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,424
    but the previous 100 years or so gave us as good a run as the Papacy has probably ever had.


    I'm very partial to the Pius Popes. : )
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 686
    I wonder if it is the Irish reticence to criticize the Pope—my Italian has let me see that Italian Catholicism has few who are reticent in any way—anyway, Bugnini did not do anything to the Liturgy and could not have. It was done by the Bl Paul VI. And as such should command respect.

    The Italians, with their typical lack of deference, called him Amleto—Hamlet—because he had trouble deciding. My experience of such people is that when they make decisions, it comes across as harsh and arbitrary—and then may be filled with remorse. All the condescending anecdotes about his bursting into tears are, first of all, probably pious nonsense, but to the extent that they happened, reflect that aspect of his personality. The diary of his Master of Ceremonies has been released in Italian. With the proviso that people lie to their diaries all the time, (or may add words to reflect what they think another person meant), that would make an interesting read.

    But we should stop saying Bugnini did anything, and say instead “the Blessed Pope Paul VI.” He did it.

    Kenneth
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 686
    To return to where I started, I have Fr Columba Kelly, OSB, Jackson, and JulieColl to thabknfor opening my eyes to the clear teaching that VII applies to the TLM. Thank you, one and all.

    Kenneth
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 7,895
    This thread is a good example of diabolical disorientation that haunts us.
    Thanked by 1bhcordova
  • Ted
    Posts: 141
    CharlesW :
    "Pius V did not do as much codifying as rewriting." You may want to give more evidence for this. When one examines Missals from the 8th century one is amazed as to how almost identical the Mass was to that from Trent. Moreover, even the Bobbio Missal from the 7th century has striking similarities. The Canon is the most stable throughout those centuries since after St Gregory the Great no one would dare, not even a pope, to change anything in it until St John XXIII came along.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,424
    Happy to help! It's an essential question. Sorry if I get carried away sometimes and go on and on.

    The 10/24/98 speech by Cardinal Ratzinger is the key to this issue. Someday we'll talk about the "essential criteria" he outlined in that speech which apply to both forms of the Roman rite and which, if followed, will help fully integrate the celebration of the ancient liturgy in the life of the Church:

    This is what he says will happen when those "essential criteria" are applied to the EF:

    "This is why it is very important to observe the essential criteria of the Constitution on the Liturgy, which I quoted above, including when one celebrates according to the old Missal! The moment when this liturgy truly touches the faithful with its beauty and its richness, then it will be loved, then it will no longer be irreconcilably opposed to the new Liturgy, providing that these criteria are indeed applied as the Council wished. "


  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 686
    Diabolical disorientation? I don’t feel disoriented but I am strictly a Roma Locuta Est kinda guy.

    Kenneth
    Thanked by 1a_f_hawkins