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.

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/

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.

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.

...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.

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.

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

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

>>" 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.

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.

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.

Next year is the 50th anniversary of the Novus Ordo.

"Sunshine on my shoulders makes me happy" . . .

CCooze: why did you think I meant Fr Z?

Kenneth

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. : )

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

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.

Diabolical disorientation? I don’t feel disoriented but I am strictly a Roma Locuta Est kinda guy.

Kenneth