FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Faithful urged to avoid SSPX by Rome
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
I got this from AQ...


Msgr. Pozzo on Three Years of Summorum Pontificum


From our friends in The New Liturgical Movement (emphases mine):

Interview with Ecclesia Dei Secretary on Three Years of Summorum Pontificum
by Gregor Kollmorgen

The German Service of Vatican Radio today carries an interview with Msgr. Guido Pozzo, the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, on the occasion of three years of Summorum Pontificum. NLM will try to provide a full translation (if any of our readers would be willing to help, that would be greatly appreciated - email addressed can be found at the top of the left side bar). In the meantime, here are a few salient points:

1. (When asked about resistence to the usus antiquiorSmile The old Rite of the Mass has a deep richness that needs not only to be respected, but also to be rediscovered, for the benefit of the liturgy, also as it is celebrated today. These prejudices and resistance have to be overcome by a change in the forma mentis, the disposition. A more adequate liturgical formation is needed.

2. (When asked whether interest in the usus antiquior is growingSmile I would say growing. Also, because we observe that especially in the younger generations there is interest in and popularity of the old form of the Mass. And this is surprising news.

3. (When asked about numbers of faithful interested in the Extraordinary FormSmile It is certainly clear, too, that the value of the Extraordinary Form of the Rite has nothing to do with numbers. Both forms are equal in value and dignity.

4. I am of the opinion that one should offer seminarians in the seminaries the opportunity to learn the celebration in the Extraordinary Form properly - not as an obligation, but as a possibility. Where possible, one could make use for the formation of the priests of those institutions which are under the jurisdiction of the Commission Ecclesia Dei and follow the traditional liturgical discipline.

5. In the letter to the bishops accompanying the motu proprio, Pope Benedict mentioned on the one hand the need to update the calendar of Saints, i.e. to insert the Saints proclaimed after 1962, and on the other hand that certain prefaces from the Missal of Paul VI should be incorporated in order to enrich the collection of the prefaces of the Missal of 1962. The Commission Ecclesia Dei has set up a study process to comply with the will of the Holy Father. Here one will soon, I think, arrive at a proposal, which will shortly be submitted to the Holy Father for approbation.

6. I think we must also recognize that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite offers a more extensive reading of Scripture than the Missal of 1962. Nevertheless, an amendment of the Missal of 1962 in this regard is not easy, because one has to keep in mind the relation between the biblical readings and the antiphons or responsories of the Roman breviary for that day. It bears recalling, too, however, that under Pope Pius XII a number of additional readings for the commons of Saints has been added. Therefore, one can not rule out a possible extension for the readings of the Mass. That does not mean, however, that one may as a bishop or priest celebrant subjectively and arbitrarily change the sequence of the Lectionary or mix the two forms, so that the character of both is lost.

7. In light of these explanations (sc. in the letter to the bishops), it is clear that the Catholic faithful are urged to avoid participation in the Mass or the reception of the sacraments from a priest of the FSSPX, because they are canonically irregular.

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/12...morum.html
What it should say is the faithful should avoid the NO .    Wink
(12-03-2010, 06:13 PM)Justin Wrote: [ -> ]What it should say is the faithful should avoid the NO .    Wink

No argument from me there.

I like this reply that was posted on AQ...

Anonymous said...
First of all, is there available yet a translation either into English or French? I cannot read German (regretably: except for the days of the week!).


My reaction to these very limited comments:

First, from Nos. 5 and 6 here, it is clear that, under Pozzo (as under Perl before him), there are plans afoot to move the ancient Mass in the direction of mild reform: baby steps all over again. Obviously, we cannot object in principle to an enrichment of the calendar, for that is the normal way to alter the Mass over time in order to keep it connected to the lived experience of the faithful. But I have urged in the past that, in the wake of a revolution the effects of which are still continuing, there should be no reform of any kind for a 'safe period' of fifty years. We do not want or need a Mass for John XXIII, thank you very much. Let the dust settle for some time and let sanity return before we decide which new ss. we need in the universal calendar.

Secondly, we don't need and don't want any prefaces from NewMass or, for that matter, anything at all from NewMass.

Of course, the Pope has already taken the first step with his reform of the Good Friday Prayer. That was just a first baby-step. Here we go again. Back to the attack we go.


In regard to the closing Point #7 here, my reaction is positive, not negative. This sort of wording is exactly what I have anticipated and even hoped for (given what is realistic). Notice Monsignor's choice of words: "urged to avoid". That does not equal "forbidden" and could even go with an 'although these Masses fulfil the Sunday obligation" clause. I am not trying to put words into Msgr. Pozzo's mouth. I emphasise that we have no idea what a coming document will say on this. But the expression he is using is at least hopeful. Of course, Rome cannot say that attendance at Society Masses is forbidden, only that they do or do not fulfil the Sunday obligation. She cannot say that they do not without contradicting her previous private statements. They may or may not decide to make public the revelation that they do. Ah, how womderfully Roman this all is.

Whatever the case may be, a continued independence of the S.S.P.X may be our only way, really, to keep our Mass safe in form for the future, since the tinkerers are about to spring into action.

The Pope suggested that, for the Anglican incomers, reunion rather than absorption would be the model. Believing this, the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) asked for reunion. But the liberal bishops have engineered absorption for it, dissolving its charism in structures controlled by others (at least in England and Wales and, now, probably the U.S.A. as well). amd foisting on its priests that poison, the Bugnini Missal.

Rome betrayed the TAC. Bishop Fellay, I'm hoping, will notice this stabbing in the back of the TAC. It should be all the more reason for him to avoid any reconciliation with Conciliar Rome. As Archbishop Lefebvre put it so well: you can't trust these Romans. As long as liberal bishops dominate the episcopal conferences and as long as collegiality makes it impossible for the Pope to govern the Church, the problem remains overwhelming.

P.K.T.P.

P.S. Two years apassing and no canonical structure for the Orphans of the Most Holy Redeemer.

"Blah, blah, blah, blah..."

Catholic substance = zero.
Quote:For me, at least, the more I hear of rumblings of Novus Ordo guided improvements to the Traditional Mass, the more I am inclined to run, not walk, to a Mass said by an SSPX or an independent priest.

The above statement can be found in the comments section of the linked article, and is one which I happen to agree with.  Wink
All that SP was was a horse and carrot to keep people in the ever dwindling congregations of NewChurch pedophile parishes. One should avoid the NO like the plague.

The talks between Modernist Rome and the SSPX must not be going to well.
If they are "Irregular" then why can they say Mass at St Peter's Basillica?
I have been going to mainly "approved" Masses for several years, though I've visited the SSPX from time to time and defend the Society from its detractors.  Recent events have pushed me toward the SSPX, as well as having just read "A Bishop Speaks."  I don't see how any Catholic could read that book and not be deeply moved by the sincerity, tenacity, and obviously deep piety of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, God bless him!
(12-03-2010, 11:00 PM)Christus Imperat Wrote: [ -> ]I have been going to mainly "approved" Masses for several years, though I've visited the SSPX from time to time and defend the Society from its detractors.  Recent events have pushed me toward the SSPX, as well as having just read "A Bishop Speaks."  I don't see how any Catholic could read that book and not be deeply moved by the sincerity, tenacity, and obviously deep piety of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, God bless him!


I am not meaning to single you out...but this is a very typical pattern.  It seems to have happened with a fairly large % including yours truely.  There is a very obvious progression from conserv NO to FSSP or indult/EF to SSPX or related.


As for the subject of the OP... No money, Honey
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5