More and more cardinals and other bishops are seeking a way to win back those who have been hoodwinked by the FSSPX self-righteousness and neo-Protestantism. The organization of the FSSPX has brainwashed most of their adherents as do all schismatic, Protestantizing sects do.
Forget about the FSSPX! Restore Summorum Pontificum, we beg you O, Most Holy Father, Pope Leo XIV!
Just make sure that the Modern Missal, celebrated with traditional sensibilities, meaning the option of ad orientem and kneeling for Holy Communion is explicitly allowed and no bishop can suppress these two options in the Modern Mass.
But let’s do this—restore Summorum Pontificum!
Summorum Pontificum
Supreme Pontiffs
This is a non-official English translation, issued by the Vatican Information Service, of Benedict XVI’s Apostolic Letter “Summorum Pontificum,” issued “motu proprio”, concerning the use of the Roman Missal promulgated by John XXIII in 1962. The original text written in Latin can be found on the Vatican’s Web site.
——————-
Apostolic Letter in the form “Motu Proprio”
Up to our own times, it has been the constant concern of Supreme Pontiffs to ensure that the Church of Christ offers a worthy ritual to the Divine Majesty, “to the praise and glory of His name,” and “to the benefit of all His Holy Church.”
Since time immemorial it has been necessary — as it is also for the future — to maintain the principle according to which “each particular Church must concur with the universal Church, not only as regards the doctrine of the faith and the sacramental signs, but also as regards the usages universally accepted by uninterrupted apostolic Tradition, which must be observed not only to avoid errors but also to transmit the integrity of the faith, because the Church’s law of prayer corresponds to her law of faith.”[1]
Among the Pontiffs who showed that requisite concern, particularly outstanding is the name of St. Gregory the Great, who made every effort to ensure that the new peoples of Europe received both the Catholic faith and the treasures of worship and culture that had been accumulated by the Romans in preceding centuries. He commanded that the form of the sacred liturgy as celebrated in Rome (concerning both the Sacrifice of Mass and the Divine Office) be conserved. He took great concern to ensure the dissemination of monks and nuns who, following the Rule of St. Benedict, together with the announcement of the Gospel, illustrated with their lives the wise provision of their rule that “nothing should be placed before the work of God.” In this way the sacred liturgy, celebrated according to the Roman use, enriched not only the faith and piety but also the culture of many peoples. It is known, in fact, that the Latin liturgy of the Church in its various forms, in each century of the Christian era, has been a spur to the spiritual life of many saints, has reinforced many peoples in the virtue of religion and fecundated their piety.
Many other Roman pontiffs, in the course of the centuries, showed particular solicitude in ensuring that the sacred liturgy accomplished this task more effectively. Outstanding among them is St. Pius V who, sustained by great pastoral zeal and following the exhortations of the Council of Trent, renewed the entire liturgy of the Church, oversaw the publication of liturgical books amended and “renewed in accordance with the norms of the fathers,” and provided them for the use of the Latin Church.
One of the liturgical books of the Roman rite is the Roman Missal, which developed in the city of Rome and, with the passing of the centuries, little by little took forms very similar to that it has had in recent times.
“It was towards this same goal that succeeding Roman Pontiffs directed their energies during the subsequent centuries in order to ensure that the rites and liturgical books were brought up to date and when necessary clarified. From the beginning of this century they undertook a more general reform.”[2] Thus our predecessors Clement VIII, Urban VIII, St. Pius X,[3] Benedict XV, Pius XII and Blessed John XXIII all played a part.
In more recent times, the Second Vatican Council expressed a desire that the respectful reverence due to divine worship should be renewed and adapted to the needs of our time. Moved by this desire our predecessor, the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI, approved, in 1970, reformed and partly renewed liturgical books for the Latin Church. These, translated into the various languages of the world, were willingly accepted by bishops, priests and faithful. John Paul II amended the third typical edition of the Roman Missal. Thus Roman Pontiffs have operated to ensure that “this kind of liturgical edifice … should again appear resplendent for its dignity and harmony.”[4]
But in some regions, no small numbers of faithful adhered and continue to adhere with great love and affection to the earlier liturgical forms. These had so deeply marked their culture and their spirit that in 1984 the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, moved by a concern for the pastoral care of these faithful, with the special indult “Quattuor Abhinc Anno,” issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted permission to use the Roman Missal published by Blessed John XXIII in the year 1962. Later, in the year 1988, John Paul II with the apostolic letter given as “motu proprio, “Ecclesia Dei,” exhorted bishops to make generous use of this power in favor of all the faithful who so desired.
Following the insistent prayers of these faithful, long deliberated upon by our predecessor John Paul II, and after having listened to the views of the cardinal fathers of the consistory of 22 March 2006, having reflected deeply upon all aspects of the question, invoked the Holy Spirit and trusting in the help of God, with these apostolic letters we establish the following:
Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the “Lex orandi” (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Blessed John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same “Lex orandi,” and must be given due honor for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s “Lex orandi” will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s “Lex credendi” (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.
It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the liturgy of the Church. The conditions for the use of this Missal as laid down by earlier documents “Quattuor Abhinc Annis” and “Ecclesia Dei,” are substituted as follows:
Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Blessed Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his ordinary.
Art. 3. Communities of institutes of consecrated life and of societies of apostolic life, of either pontifical or diocesan right, wishing to celebrate Mass in accordance with the edition of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1962, for conventual or “community” celebration in their oratories, may do so. If an individual community or an entire institute or society wishes to undertake such celebrations often, habitually or permanently, the decision must be taken by the superiors major, in accordance with the law and following their own specific decrees and statues.
Art. 4. Celebrations of Mass as mentioned above in art. 2 may — observing all the norms of law — also be attended by faithful who, of their own free will, ask to be admitted.
Art. 5. §1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonizes with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with Canon 392, avoiding discord and favoring the unity of the whole Church.
§2 Celebration in accordance with the Missal of Blessed John XXIII may take place on working days; while on Sundays and feast days one such celebration may also be held.
§3 For faithful and priests who request it, the pastor should also allow celebrations in this extraordinary form for special circumstances such as marriages, funerals or occasional celebrations, i.e., pilgrimages.
§4 Priests who use the Missal of Blessed John XXIII must be qualified to do so and not juridically impeded.
§5 In churches that are not parish or conventual churches, it is the duty of the rector of the church to grant the above permission.
Art. 6. In Masses celebrated in the presence of the people in accordance with the Missal of Blessed John XXIII, the readings may be given in the vernacular, using editions recognized by the Apostolic See.
Art. 7. If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5 §1, has not obtained satisfaction to their requests from the pastor, they should inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is strongly requested to satisfy their wishes. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.
Art. 8. A bishop who, desirous of satisfying such requests, but who for various reasons is unable to do so, may refer the problem to the Commission Ecclesia Dei to obtain counsel and assistance.
Art. 9. §1 The pastor, having attentively examined all aspects, may also grant permission to use the earlier ritual for the administration of the sacraments of baptism, marriage, penance, and the anointing of the sick, if the good of souls would seem to require it.
§ 2 Ordinaries are given the right to celebrate the sacrament of confirmation using the earlier Roman Pontifical, if the good of souls would seem to require it.
§ 2 Clerics ordained “in sacris constitutis” may use the Roman Breviary promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962.
Art. 10. The ordinary of a particular place, if he feels it appropriate, may erect a personal parish in accordance with Canon 518 for celebrations following the ancient form of the Roman rite, or appoint a chaplain, while observing all the norms of law.
Art. 11. The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, erected by John Paul II in 1988[5], continues to exercise its function. Said commission will have the form, duties and norms that the Roman Pontiff wishes to assign it.
Art. 12. This commission, apart from the powers it enjoys, will exercise the authority of the Holy See, supervising the observance and application of these dispositions.
We order that everything We have established with these apostolic letters issued as “motu proprio” be considered as “established and decreed,” and to be observed from Sept. 14 of this year, feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, whatever there may be to the contrary.
From Rome, at St. Peter’s, July 7, 2007, third year of Our Pontificate.
[1] General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 3rd ed., 2002, No. 397.
[2] John Paul II, apostolic letter “Vicesimus Quintus Annus,” Dec. 4, 1988, 3: AAS 81 (1989), 899.
[3] Ibid.
[4] St. Pius X, apostolic letter issued “motu propio data,” “Abhinc Duos Annos,” Oct. 23, 1913: AAS 5 (1913), 449-450; cf John Paul II, apostolic letter “Vicesimus Quintus Annus,” No. 3: AAS 81 (1989), 899.
[5] Cf John Paul II, apostolic letter issued “motu proprio data,” “Ecclesia Dei,” July 2, 1988, 6: AAS 80 (1988), 1498.
29 comments:
Better yet give those bishops suppressing ad orientem and kneeling for Holy Communion the boot! They can learn to code!
That is a brilliant recommendation, FrAJM. But that works contrary to the apparent goal to kill off the Latin Liturgy. The local dioceses are working almost daily to exterminate TLM. I am put off by the prideful aura of the SSPX but the average Catholic will have no alternative as the local bishops suppress the TLM. This is a two pronged attack by the Church to make the NO the only game in town. It’s pretty smart strategy, IMO.
I think there are at least two types of people attached to the SSPX: those who are primarily focused on liturgical preference (that is, they want to go to the Latin Mass), and those who are more focused on doctrinal issues. For the first type, I think your prescription is probably accurate.
For the second type, which would likely include most of their clergy, I don't think that liberalizing permission for the Latin Mass does much to address their concern. We recently had over some long-time SSPX people, who have a son who is an SSPX priest. These folks went through the first excommunication in 1988. They don't seem to fussed by the whole thing. They firmly believe that eventually Rome will one day "return to being Catholic." There are firmly entrenched views from these sorts of folks, and I'm not really sure what Rome could do to win them back over short of repudiating the last 60+ years of reforms and doctrinal shifts.
Various folks have determined that it is only via the Mass of Saint John XXIII that one may encounter the Roman liturgical tradition. Said folks have viewed the suppression of said Mass as having prevented access to the Roman liturgical tradition.
In turn supposedly, it is often via the SSPX that access to the Roman liturgical tradition is possible.
However, we have bishops who have acted in line with Pope Leo XIV's call to promote access to the Roman liturgical tradition via the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI.
Example: Bishop Medley of Owensboro two weeks ago promoted within his diocese the above. He established the transition from the Mass of Pope Saint John XXIII to that of Pope Saint Paul VI.
Bishop Medley stated: "I know in some dioceses, the faithful who have shown a preference for the Mass celebrated in Latin have accepted the Novus Ordo Mass celebrated in the Latin language.”
In line with the above, reports have indicated that an increasing amount of young "traditional" Catholics have satisfied their desire for Roman liturgical tradition via the "Vatican II Mass, the Mass of Paul VI" (Pope Leo XIV's words).
Should bishops, as well as trads, align with Pope Leo XIV's above exhortation — which an increasing amount of trads have done, according to reports — then excuses to embrace the SSPX would cease.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
For the people who are mainly concerned about aesthetics, excuses to embrace the SSPX would cease. There are many in your church who are concerned about doctrinal issues more than aesthetics, though. It seems little is being done to address their concerns.
But the right to celebrate the new Mass with all of the options that mirror the old Mass needs be made explicit and unconditional. It is often more difficult to celebrate such a Mass than the TLM itself. If this had been done 50 years ago there would be no SSPX or the continuing liturgical wars.
Amen!
The SSPX would have existed today even if 50 years ago the "new Mass" had "mirrored" the "old Mass."
The Society has reiterated countless times that their war with God and His Church is focused overwhelmingly upon the Second Sacred Vatican Ecumenical Council.
Pope Benedict XVI had lifted the excommunications, issued Summorum Pontificum...nevertheless, that proved worthless to the cause of peace between Rome and the SSPX.
The SSPX acknowledged that they had enjoyed a stellar relationship with Pope Francis. Nevertheless, their war with the Church had remained focused upon the Council.
Father Davide Pagliarani, SSPX Superior General:
"Everything else in the conciliar documents – and I’m simplifying things a bit – all the quotations from the Church Fathers and the quotes from previous councils are simply the padding to go around the essential central elements, like a picture frame around a picture.
"Again, we must be honest. The real Second Vatican Council, it must be rejected.
"The Catholic Church cannot regenerate herself if it is not rejected."
=======
Father Pagliarani reiterated earlier this year that for the SSPX, the crisis is linked to the Council, Council, Council.
He insisted that the crisis within the Church is greater than that of 1988 A.D.
The primary reason: Pope Leo XIV's determination to guide the Church via the supposed error-ridden Council — a Council that for decades has produced spiritual poison supposedly.
Father Pagliarani:
"The Second Vatican Council remains more than ever the compass guiding today’s churchmen, and they are unlikely to change course in the near future.
"Furthermore, the major orientations already taking shape in this new pontificate — particularly through the most recent consistory — only confirm this."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
By any objective measure, Vatican II was an unmitigated disaster. The lefties in the Church used and abused the various schema and the results have been closed churches, decimated religious orders, and lack of belief in Transubstantiation. To say otherwise, is to deny reality. But what is the worst part, clericalism on steroids does not brook dissent from the fairytale that V II was a success and the new rite of the Mass is more successful in attracting souls than its predecessor. You cannot fix the Church until you admit error and go on a course correction. It appears young people get that and are thirsting for tradition, including traditional liturgy but the double-knit dinosaurs running the Church are in denial and are totally lacking in charity.
I wonder how many people might leave Roman Catholicism, including priests, if the Latin mass was restored...
It is amazing that certain folks continue to claim that had the "new Mass" "mirrored" the "old Mass," the SSPX would not have existed.
The SSPX has made it clear repeatedly that their war against God and His Church is not rooted in the Latin Massa issue. Said war is rooted in the SSPX's war against the supposed error-filled, poisonous Council.
Pope Benedict XVI had "coddled" the SSPX to the point that he had lifted the excommunications against the SSPX bishops. Pope Benedict XVI had issued Summorum Pontificum.
Then, as compared to Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis "coddled" the SSPX to an even greater degree.
But none of the above had persuaded the SSPX to enter into full communion with Holy Mother Church. The reason is that the Society had not obtained from Rome the Society's ultimate goal.
That is, to placate the Society, the True Church must condemn Vatican II.
The SSPX has flown so far off the rails that the Society is convinced that God has tasked the SSPX to lead Holy Mother Church from Her grave error...that is, Her unrelenting attachment to Vatican II.
Father Davide Pagliarani, SSPX Superior General:
"Again, we must be honest. The real Second Vatican Council, it must be rejected. The Catholic Church cannot regenerate herself if it is not rejected."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Quit rambling around in circles spewing nonsense. The new Mass has been an abject failure, shedding millions of Catholics. The raw data totally obliterates your narrative
Traditionis custodes, the cruel document of Francis that aimed to completely (even if gradually) annihilate the Traditional liturgy of the Latin Church, was promulgated on the Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, exactly five years ago.
There was one group benefited above all by Traditionis Custodes: the Society of Saint Pius X.
Now, they would never favor it or be happy with it. But they were immensely benefited in practice by the end of Summorum Pontificum with a monopoly or quasi-monopoly of the Traditional Latin Mass and Sacraments in vast parts of the world.
Considering the most recent difficulties faced by that Society in its relations with the Apostolic See, it is time for His Holiness the Pope to send this hideous document, this wall of shame that marginalizes the most faithful Catholics, to the dustbin of history, and bring back justice and peace, as shown by the example of Pope Benedict XVI, of most blessed memory. It is time to once again bring freedom to Catholics and to liberalize what should never have been curtailed.
Your Holiness, open this gate! Your Holiness: Tear Down this Wall!
I agree that the fuss over the SSPX is overblown. Oriens Journal had an interesting perspective: "I think there is a better question: is the SSPX (and its apostolate) an actual remedy for the crisis in the Church and the state of necessity that has arisen? I am not asking whether the Church and Her Tradition are the answer. Anyone who reads our Journal knows that the answer is a resounding yes. I am also not asking whether the Society offers any benefits at all. It clearly does. The right question must go further: what is the SSPX doing and offering that cannot be found in the Ecclesia Dei institutes and societies that are not “irregular”?"
You ignore the dynamic that created the SSPX. From the beginning there have been two radically opposed interpretations of Vatican II, one, represented by Pope Benedict, that view it through the lens of the hermeneutics of continuity, and the other, represented by the Bologna school, through the lens of the hermeneutics of rupture.
The suppression of a traditional form of the new Mass was not just about the liturgy. It also identified, and excluded, those who viewed Vatican II in continuity with the past. The SSPX was formed because those men could not get ordained by their home bishops.
An acceptance of a traditional form of the new Mass would also have given a home to those who viewed Vatican II as a continuation with the past and there would have been no need for the SSPX.
You claim that the SSPX rejects Vatican II, but which one? Unfortunately, they have accepted the Bologna school of interpretation. That is what they reject. And how many times has the charge of "rejecting Vatican II" been thrown out against those who only rejected a radical interpretation of it? You want to use Latin? You reject Vatican II. You don't like altar girls? You reject Vatican II. Etc., etc., etc.
Only two things are needed to bring peace back to the Church: lift all restrictions on the old Mass, or at least on a fully traditional form of the new Mass; and accept the legitimate criticism of a radical interpretation of Vatican II, welcoming those who do so back into the Church. If this were done the SSPX would slowly die off.
Nor should the question of the liturgy be based solely on the most radical proponents of the old Mass. Many more faithful Catholics worship according to the old Mass that are in full communion with the Church, and many more who would like to. Should we judge, and restrict, the new Mass based on the abuses of its most radical supporters?
Very astute question. The Catholic Church is in a state of disarray, look no further than bully bishops who forbid priests to use legitimate options found in the Novus Ordo Missae itself such as ad orientem worship. People are increasingly sick and tired of the double standard: traditionalists get crushed and the looney German bishops get coddled. There will be a breaking point. At some point Leo will have to make a choice. I pray he chooses well.
Father Anthony,
MT has no idea what you are talking about. He is a cut and paste Catholic who has done no reading about the Bologna School nor Benedict's hermeneutic of continuity.
I was a young person when the first of the deleterious changes began: the flipping of the altars and the idiotic idea of using vernacular for the Ordinary even though Vatican II mandated that pastors teach their congregations to
sing, in Latin, the parts of the Ordinary proper to them. Talk about schizophrenia! I belonged to a parish that took lay participation seriously. I could chant in Latin, 5 different Gregorian chant settings of the Mass, by heart, at age 10. Our parish was actually doing what Sacrosanctum Concilium was articulating about participation by the laity on the very eve of the Council.
In my opinion, thus it is a fact, the Novus Ordo Missae is the sacrament of disunity and far from a model of noble simplicity. Until the Roman Canon is the sole option and the introductory rites have the saying of the Confiteor as the sold option there will not even be a slim chance that we will have "unity" in the Roman Rite. I'm starting to think Bella Dodd was right.
I wonder if Cardinal Sarah will be censored by the Vatican for speaking the truth?
"In a speech before the European Parliament, Cardinal Robert Sarah warned that the rise of radical Islam and the push of gender ideology are “apocalyptic beasts” and an attack on the sanctity of life and God."
Of course, in the US we have corrupt clergy, bishops and priests, who vote for the Party that supports these evils!
I agree with you about the shortcomings of the new Mass but I take the attitude that when the world deals you lemons, make lemonade. Or in other words, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Father Anthony,
If only the bishops would let you make lemonade out of lemons!!!
Sadly, I think we are facing a demographic sinkhole. I foresee more Church closings, etc., unless Leo decides on a course correction. Revoking that evil document, Traditiones Custodes would be an excellent start. Then let the "magic of the marketplace" decide. That's what these lefties' hate, market rejection of their inferior product!
"You ignore the dynamic that created the SSPX."
The dynamic that created the SSPX is disobedience that flows from pride. It is not the "Benedict School" or the "Bologna School." It is the prideful unwillingness of the SSPX, the ones who say "The new mass is not the Roman Rite."
That disobedience has its roots in the injustice and dishonesty of the bishops who turned away good men from the priesthood. You cannot address the one without addressing the other. It is hypocritical to say that the priests of the SSPX need to be in union with Rome and their bishops if those very bishops will not welcome them. It is also hypocritical to say that they must accept the new Mass when the bishops themselves reject the new Mass by placing restrictions are placed on that mass that do not allow it to be said in a way that reflects the 2000 year old liturgical tradition of the Church. Yes, the SSPX needs to be corrected but it is time for Rome and the bishops to remove the beam from their own eyes so that they can see clearly to remove the splinter from the SSPX's eye.
Bishops have the final word on who is and who is not ordained. And that is as it should be. Their judgement, not yours, not mine, is the final word. One may disagree, but that matters not.
No bishop MUST welcome the SSPX is his diocese. That call is his, not yours and not mine. We may disagree vocally behind closed doors, but when the doors open, HE is the bishop and HIS word is law.
The New Mas does reflect the 2000 year old liturgical tradition of the Church. The reforms stripped away what was superfluous, what was deemed to be unnecessary, what, at times, impeded the mystery of the Sacred Rite from being fully communicated to the People of God.
Disobediently ordaining bishops without the approval of the Bishop of Rome is not some splinter, some speck, some mote in the SSPX's eye. You know that this act is of far greater importance than turning some unworthy candidate out of the seminary.
Bishops' decisions about who do ordain and not to ordain need to be based on justice. To preclude candidates based on an attachment to the historical form of the Mass or a preference for legitimate options in the new Mass approved by the popes for that mirror the old Mass is not just. The bishop may indeed have the final word but that final word can still be an abuse of his power.
The idea that the new Mass reflects the 2000 year old liturgical tradition of the Church, especially how it is routinely celebrated, is laughable. Eliminating Latin does not reflect the 2000 year old liturgical tradition of the Church. Creating new Eucharistic prayers does not reflect the 2000 year old liturgical tradition of the Church. The virtual suppression of the Roman Canon does not reflect the 2000 year old liturgical tradition of the Church. Replacing Gregorian chant with newly written hymns does not reflect the 2000 year old liturgical tradition of the Church. Lay readers and ministers of Communion does not reflect the 2000 year old liturgical tradition of the Church. Mass versus populum does not reflect the 2000 year old tradition of the Church. Completely rewriting the orations and a new lectionary does not reflect the 2000 year old liturgical tradition of the Church. Etc., etc., etc. This is more than just stripping away what was superfluous.
And you know that the pervasive turning away of worthy conservative candidates for the priesthood is no little thing. The two acts cannot be separated from each other.
And one final note: you, Fr. Kavanaugh, should be the last person to lecture anyone about disobedience since you yourself are being disobedient in restricting priests under you from exercising legitimate options approved by the popes.
Bravo Father Anthony, bravo but you are speaking to a “liberal” which means he is ignorant and intolerant!
Anthony - You defend the disobedience of the SSPX saying that they HAD to go into schism, that there was no other choice. So you can stuff your lectures about disobedience.
As Fr. Gerlad Murray puts is, the disobedience of the SSPX, "...tears that garment by committing what he (Fr. Pagliarani) knows the Holy See has deemed a schismatic act. This is akin to an army claiming it has to destroy an enemy-held village in order to save it."
The 2000 year tradition of the mass is what I celebrate every time I celebrate mass. It is not the culturally-based TLM which is a completely western European construct from Latin to church decoration to chant to fabric choices for vestments.
The orations are written by humans and subject to re-writing when Holy Mother Church chooses to do so. There's nothing - nothing - sacrosanct about them. The same goes for the exclusion of laity and women form ministries at mass. These are choices made by humans, not some divinely received instruction. To lift them to the irreformable is blasphemous.
I have never defended the disobedience of the SSPX, only that the injustice and dishonesty that led to the creation of the SSPX has to be addressed as well their disobedience, injustice that goes well beyond that directed at the SSPX and to all who are attached to a traditional form of the Mass, either in the old Mass or the new, injustice that includes your own disobedience in preventing priests in your parish from using forms of the new Mass authorized by the popes. You have no basis for complaining about the disobedience of the SSPX when you, too, are disobedient.
Forms that were created only 50 years ago cannot in manner be called traditional. Give it up. The way you celebrate the Mass may be authorized, but it is in no way traditional. It may even, in the minds of some, be preferable but it is not traditional. One wonders why you keep claiming such an absurdity.
You always justify the new Mass by saying there is nothing sacrosanct about the old Mass and its forms, but that cuts both ways. You cannot claim that the present form is sacrosanct either. Why cannot not the two forms of the Mass exist side-by-side like the many other liturgical rites in the Church?
Anthony - When you say the SSPX was forced to choose the path they selected, or they had reason to choose that path, or that "injustice" is a legitimate reason for them to choose disobedience, then you defend them.
What is Traditional about the mass is timeless and eternal. Latin, Gregorian chant, ad orientem, altar rails, medieval vestment styles, the orations, etc., are neither timeless nor eternal.
Reread what I have written. I have never said that they were forced to choose the path they selected or that the injustice directed at them is a legitimate reason for their actions. Let me be clear and unambiguous; the SSPX were wrong to consecrate bishops without papal approval, but conflicts are rarely binary with one side being right and the other wrong. The SSPX was not created in a vacuum. There were reasons for what they did even if those reasons do not justify their actions. Even before or without an SSPX the radical reformers are unjust in suppressing traditional forms of worship and excluding those who are attached to them. This needs to be addressed regardless of what the SSPX does or how they are treated.
Those items that you mentioned may not be eternal but they are timeless because they have been handed down over many centuries and do not belong exclusively to any one of them.
And you still have not addressed why the novelties that have been introduced in the last 50 years are to be considered sacrosanct and imperative on everyone. There are many rites in the Church; why cannot the historical Roman rite exist alongside the new?
Post a Comment