Am I supposed to be going to Mass at my local church?
#41
(11-27-2017, 11:10 AM)Dave01 Wrote: Obviously this is a rather contentious issue - my opinion is that of the SSPX; that (very briefly stated) the New Mass is not a representation of the Catholic faith, and thus, upon realization of this fact, one cannot attend the NO except in special circumstances, just as one could not normally attend any other objectively schismatic rite.
The Church cannot give the faithful schismatic rites. That flies in the face of Christ's promise that Peter's faith would not fail. 

I think your opinion is harmful. I could list a number of consistently reverent OF parishes which are distinctly Catholic in character.

With regard to the SSPX, Venerable Fulton Sheen wrote the following:

"September 21, 1978

Dear Barbara:

I thank you for your kind letter and I admire you as the mother of eight small children. I am sure you are busy, but happy.

If you have any influence on your friend I would beg you to influence her to leave the so-called Society of Saint Pius X. This group has no ecclesiastical approval, and indeed, it can lead her and possibly her family into schism and even heresy.

The Vatican Council approved the updating of the Liturgy and amongst the changes were those recommended for the Mass. The changes made by Pope Paul VI were not doctrinal changes, they merely changed from Latin to the vernacular. There have been many changes in the Mass down through the centuries.

The Lord never said Mass in Latin; He used the language of the time. Moreover, the change in translation does not alter the meaning of the text. I am always looking for translations that make the Scriptures more understandable and clear.

Since I never write to anyone unless they have written to me I shall not write to Mrs. Richardon. I beg of you to tell her that she should withdraw from that schismatical sect as soon as possible, or suffer the consequence of possibly finding herself outside the Church.

God love you!

†Fulton J. Sheen"

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/arti...-it-schism
Reply
#42
(01-04-2018, 05:49 AM)In His Love Wrote:
(11-27-2017, 11:10 AM)Dave01 Wrote: Obviously this is a rather contentious issue - my opinion is that of the SSPX; that (very briefly stated) the New Mass is not a representation of the Catholic faith, and thus, upon realization of this fact, one cannot attend the NO except in special circumstances, just as one could not normally attend any other objectively schismatic rite.
The Church cannot give the faithful schismatic rites. That flies in the face of Christ's promise that Peter's faith would not fail. 

I think your opinion is harmful. I could list a number of consistently reverent OF parishes which are distinctly Catholic in character.
For anyone who thinks that the NO cannot be a 'representation of the Catholic Faith', I strongly suggest a visit to the Diocese of Lincoln. Pick a Church, any Church, and go to Mass. The Mass will be beautifully celebrated with great reverence, strictly according to the rubrics, and there will be solid, orthodox Catholic doctrine preached from the pulpit.

Whilst I'm still no fan of the NO, I give thanks to God that I live in this Diocese.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#43
(11-27-2017, 02:58 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(11-27-2017, 12:03 PM)Eric F Wrote: I've had this conversation with fellow parishoners before. What if you lived in a diocese (and this situation exists in alot places in Western Europe) where the priest at the nearest parish is a way over the top, off the wall progressive liberal who supports same sex marriage, communion for the remarried, women's ordination, socialism, giving a few church buildings to the local Islamic community, etc, and then you find the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th next closest parishes aren't much different. A few people claimed they'd just stick it out go for the Eucharist and try to ignore everything else, but I can't see doing that when nearly everything you hear is offensive. I'd rather stay home and miss going to church terribly, instead of going and hating every second of it.

The problem isn't the theological or moral positions of the priest. The problem is the Novus Ordo Mass itself.

Can a good priest bring to it a sense of decorum, the necessary theological understanding that it is a Sacrifice and not a meal? Sure.

The problem is that the rite itself of the New Mass, as Cardinal Ottaviani wrote, "represents both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent."

You're welcome to disagree, but that was the Church's chief theologian 15 years well known for his balanced, reasonable, but orthodox theology.

The Novus Ordo was written as it is to intentionally to deny the Sacrifice of the Mass, blur the line between the ordained priesthood and the "priesthood" of the faithful, and implicitly deny the Real Presence. There are countless examples that could be cited but the most damning point is the very definition, in the liturgical books, of the Mass (GIRM, 1st ed., n. 7):

Quote:The Lord's Supper, or Mass, is the sacred meeting or congregation of the people of God assembled, the priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason, Christ's promise applies eminently to such a local gathering of holy Church: "Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst' (Mt. 18:20)."

This is false, so false, in fact, that it had to be corrected in the 1970 2nd edition :

Quote:At Mass or the Lord's Supper,is the sacred meeting or congregation of the people of God assembled, the priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord or eucharistic sacrifice. For this reason Christ's promise applies supremely to such a local gathering together of the Church: "Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst" (Mt. 18:20). For at the celebration of Mass, which perpetuates the sacrifice of the cross, Christ is really present to the assembly gathered in his name; he is present in the person of the minister, in his own word, and indeed substantially and permanently under the eucharistic elements.

The problem is that the Novus Ordo, itself, which was written with the first notion in mind can't simply be corrected by adding words (themselves not very theologically precise) to the GIRM. The New Mass is the same before and after. Lipstick on a pig.

The 1st edition made not a single reference to Trent. The 2nd edition in ambiguous language Trent is still not mentioned, but six footnotes were added referring to Trent.

The authors of that New Mass were also very clear that they were intentionally trying to remove what supported the Catholic notion of the Mass and effectively create a Protestant service that undermined the Catholic Faith, so much so that even Fr Louis Bouyer (a arch-liberal) resigned for the liturgical consilium formulating the New Liturgy, because of the unorthodox things imposed.

The problem isn't with the dingbat-crazy stuff you can see, but about the New Mass itself which presents a serious danger to the Faith, especially as regards the notion of the Mass, priesthood and Real Presence.

Are we really asserting that something so dangerous to one's Faith can be obligatory? We have to go and endanger our Faith every Sunday and just tough it out? 

If that's the case then going to an Orthodox liturgy is perfectly fine as well, since it is typically the same a Catholic rite, and it endangers the Faith probably less than the average Novus Ordo Mass. But we would never countenance one doing this ...
Peace.....I knew a priest (passed away now) who was invited and present at the Vat 11 Council and told me he was young and vulnerable at the time and impressed with just being there.  As some years went by, he realized and came out openly, that he made a mistake and wanted nothing to do with the Novus Ordo.  The Latin Masses were coming back stronger, but still not as much as today.  This priest started praying the Latin Mass in locations where he was accepted, however for the most part, he was not.  He told me he will have to live with this (attending the Council) for the rest of his life.  I trusted his comments then and still do - he was very well respected and well known for his contribution to Liturgical Music/Hymns.  I'm sure he is praying for us in Heaven.  God bless, angeltime :pray:
Reply
#44
The intrinsic quality of the Novus Ordo really has nothing to do with the canonical status of the SSPX. If it so happens that the SSPX will be the ones offering criticisms, then following basic logical procedure, we cannot dismiss the content of the criticism because of the questionable integrity of the criticizer. That is an obvious fallacy. The argument stands or falls on its own merits. 

Also, I'll add that the presence of the SSPX is sorely needed in the Church because I personally know of faculty in theological seminaries in the US who refuse to talk about the "problems" in the Church (whether Vatican II or Pope Francis, etc.) even in private for fear of the consequences of speaking up, and some will even actively discourage seminarians from doing likewise. The problem won't go away because our future leaders in the Church are being taught to ignore it... We precisely need more clerics speaking out. But when people fear to speak the truth and develop the habit of remaining silent, where do you think that will lead? Firstly, it leads to the disintegration of moral integrity.

I'm not going to say that the Novus Ordo is explicitly contrary to the faith, but I offer my personal experience in the Lutheran church simply as something for other readers to take it as they will. From my experience seeing the Lutherans happily use the Novus Ordo, I can say it is per se very diluted in the Faith, and to celebrate it with reverence is something that must be intentionally brought by the celebrant and those participating, not something that automatically flows from its internal structure. I don't think it's controversial to say this among conservative Catholics now; even scholars are admitting this now. Hence you can have female pastor so-and-so saying the words of consecration without anyone batting an eye. 

I at least can understand and sympathize with why not a few believe the Novus Ordo would be detrimental to their personal faith or the faith of their family members...

Edit:

I was just reminded of this need to intentionally bring reverence to the Novus Ordo by going to my home parish's Mass for January 1. None of the music was older than 1985, not a single piece. The propers were not used at all (except the collect and postcommunion prayer on the part of the priest, I suppose). And the Mass was said in three languages: English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. A friend of mine at his parish just this past Sunday (same diocese) had his priest compare the Holy Family to a gay couple adopting a child and loving that child with the "SAME LOVE" as the Holy Family. Another friend of mine, from a diocese in Canada, received a call from his mom on Christmas day. The priest there said how Our Lady DOUBTED the words of the angel at the annunciation and also how Mary and Joseph could not stay at the inn, not because there was no room as the Scripture explicitly says, but because "the innkeeper believed Mary was pregnant out of wedlock." Yes, he literally just made that up.

I've altar served for the Novus Ordo in Latin for Fr. Fessio, SJ, ad orientem, with Communion given only on the tongue and kneeling and full sung propers and ordinary chants, polyphony, organ, etc. I know that the Novus Ordo *can* be celebrated with profound reverence, but that must be intentionally brought to it. There is nothing about the rubrics of the Novus Ordo that insists one must celebrate it as such, and hence even the Lutherans can use it.
Reply
#45
(01-04-2018, 09:30 PM)richgr Wrote: The intrinsic quality of the Novus Ordo really has nothing to do with the canonical status of the SSPX. If it so happens that the SSPX will be the ones offering criticisms, then following basic logical procedure, we cannot dismiss the content of the criticism because of the questionable integrity of the criticizer. That is an obvious fallacy. The argument stands or falls on its own merits. 

Also, I'll add that the presence of the SSPX is sorely needed in the Church because I personally know of faculty in theological seminaries in the US who refuse to talk about the "problems" in the Church (whether Vatican II or Pope Francis, etc.) even in private for fear of the consequences of speaking up, and some will even actively discourage seminarians from doing likewise. The problem won't go away because our future leaders in the Church are being taught to ignore it... We precisely need more clerics speaking out. But when people fear to speak the truth and develop the habit of remaining silent, where do you think that will lead? Firstly, it leads to the disintegration of moral integrity.

I'm not going to say that the Novus Ordo is explicitly contrary to the faith, but I offer my personal experience in the Lutheran church simply as something for other readers to take it as they will. From my experience seeing the Lutherans happily use the Novus Ordo, I can say it is per se very diluted in the Faith, and to celebrate it with reverence is something that must be intentionally brought by the celebrant and those participating, not something that automatically flows from its internal structure. I don't think it's controversial to say this among conservative Catholics now; even scholars are admitting this now. Hence you can have female pastor so-and-so saying the words of consecration without anyone batting an eye. 

I at least can understand and sympathize with why not a few believe the Novus Ordo would be detrimental to their personal faith or the faith of their family members...

Edit:

I was just reminded of this need to intentionally bring reverence to the Novus Ordo by going to my home parish's Mass for January 1. None of the music was older than 1985, not a single piece. The propers were not used at all (except the collect and postcommunion prayer on the part of the priest, I suppose). And the Mass was said in three languages: English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. A friend of mine at his parish just this past Sunday (same diocese) had his priest compare the Holy Family to a gay couple adopting a child and loving that child with the "SAME LOVE" as the Holy Family. Another friend of mine, from a diocese in Canada, received a call from his mom on Christmas day. The priest there said how Our Lady DOUBTED the words of the angel at the annunciation and also how Mary and Joseph could not stay at the inn, not because there was no room as the Scripture explicitly says, but because "the innkeeper believed Mary was pregnant out of wedlock." Yes, he literally just made that up.

I've altar served for the Novus Ordo in Latin for Fr. Fessio, SJ, ad orientem, with Communion given only on the tongue and kneeling and full sung propers and ordinary chants, polyphony, organ, etc. I know that the Novus Ordo *can* be celebrated with profound reverence, but that must be intentionally brought to it. There is nothing about the rubrics of the Novus Ordo that insists one must celebrate it as such, and hence even the Lutherans can use it.
Peace.....that is very sad about the N Ordo Masses and the distasteful homilies.  Many have seen and heard a lot to this effect in word and gesture.  It seems too in some cases, that priests have somewhat given up (instead of speak up) as to how to handle things - I would think this could lead to oppression and depression for them as well as the parishners.  The parishners shouldn't have to wonder or worry about what will be said/done at Mass by the Priest and this is such a poor example to children.  Masses shouldn't vary from one location to another but be the same across the board/countryside!  Wouldn't that represent a better unity/community of believers?   I and others have been to N Ordo Masses that are reverent, however as soon as the Pastor is transferred, there can be a complete overhaul of the place!  This too, is not fair to the parishners who built up the Parish - perhaps lived their whole life in that community, and contributed to the collections for years even a lifetime.  One doesnt need a theology degree to know this is not acceptable or even polite!  If ever we are being tested, it is now - where do we stand or sit in this Church today?  God bless, angeltime :pray2:
Reply
#46
(01-04-2018, 01:18 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(01-04-2018, 05:49 AM)In His Love Wrote:
(11-27-2017, 11:10 AM)Dave01 Wrote: Obviously this is a rather contentious issue - my opinion is that of the SSPX; that (very briefly stated) the New Mass is not a representation of the Catholic faith, and thus, upon realization of this fact, one cannot attend the NO except in special circumstances, just as one could not normally attend any other objectively schismatic rite.
The Church cannot give the faithful schismatic rites. That flies in the face of Christ's promise that Peter's faith would not fail. 

I think your opinion is harmful. I could list a number of consistently reverent OF parishes which are distinctly Catholic in character.
For anyone who thinks that the NO cannot be a 'representation of the Catholic Faith', I strongly suggest a visit to the Diocese of Lincoln. Pick a Church, any Church, and go to Mass. 
Also the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in DC, Christ the King in Oklahoma City, either of the EWTN-operated churches in Alabama, the Carmelite chapel near me, St. Bridget in Whistler, Assumption Grotto in Detroit...

I've seen what it can be at its best, with Latin and all the proper protocols observed.
Reply
#47
(01-04-2018, 10:19 PM)angeltime Wrote: Peace.....that is very sad about the N Ordo Masses and the distasteful homilies.  Many have seen and heard a lot to this effect in word and gesture.  It seems too in some cases, that priests have somewhat given up (instead of speak up) as to how to handle things - I would think this could lead to oppression and depression for them as well as the parishners.  The parishners shouldn't have to wonder or worry about what will be said/done at Mass by the Priest and this is such a poor example to children.  Masses shouldn't vary from one location to another but be the same across the board/countryside!  Wouldn't that represent a better unity/community of believers?   I and others have been to N Ordo Masses that are reverent, however as soon as the Pastor is transferred, there can be a complete overhaul of the place!  This too, is not fair to the parishners who built up the Parish - perhaps lived their whole life in that community, and contributed to the collections for years even a lifetime.  One doesnt need a theology degree to know this is not acceptable or even polite!  If ever we are being tested, it is now - where do we stand or sit in this Church today?  God bless, angeltime :pray2:
I am blessed! As I posted on my blog some weeks ago, in a post entitled Being a Catholic In Wilber, Nebraska,

Quote:Well, it means that when I go to Mass, I know that it will be straight from the book. When we have a visiting Priest, as we did today, I know that his Mass will be identical to my Pastor's Mass next week. For the first time in my Catholic life, I'm actually considering buying a Missal of Paul VI. In the past, I saw no reason to do so, since every Priest seemed to be making up his own Mass as he went along, no matter what was printed in the missal or what the rubrics said. Why invest in a missal if I couldn't even follow the Masses I was hearing?
I also posted an article about our Diocese from The Liturgy Guy, called Why Aren't Other Dioceses Looking to Lincoln?, which bears reading, since it's not just St Wenceslaus' Parish, Wilber, but the entire Diocese.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#48
(01-04-2018, 05:49 AM)In His Love Wrote: The Church cannot give the faithful schismatic rites.

What does this mean? How is a rite "schismatic"?

Since the definition of "schism" is willful rejection of the legitimate authority of the Papacy or Ordinary, I'm a bit confused how you mean to apply this to some liturgical rite.

(01-04-2018, 05:49 AM)In His Love Wrote: With regard to the SSPX, Venerable Fulton Sheen wrote the following:

"September 21, 1978

Methinks that a private letter nearly 46 years ago hardly reflects the present situation with regard to the SSPX.

(01-04-2018, 05:49 AM)In His Love Wrote: ... www.churchmilitant.com...

Who is hardly an unbiased source about the SSPX. That comes from their biggest contributor, Terry Carroll, who is virulently anti-SSPX (and claims that SSPX priests sin mortally every time they offer Mass because they lack canonical status, and those who attend such Masses participate in this sin, thus risk grave sin as well). In 2012, he saved RealCatholicTV from closing, gave them $300,000, and became the Executive Producer of the new ChurchMilitant as a result, with influence over day-to-day operations and the editorial content.

Voris himself, as is easily shown, was no fan of the SSPX, but open to them in 2012, doing a program with Louis Verrecchio on the SSPX which was reasonably favorable, given both are outsiders of the SSPX. This changed radically to his now obsession with the SSPX being in schism, going to the point of outright spin, and even misrepresenting or misquoting people to make his point.

He did this with Bishop Schneider, who after his two visits to the SSPX seminaries, praised them and defended them from the charge of schism, even saying he saw no reason that the SSPX could not be immediately recognized as is. Voris, even after asking for a clarification from Bishop Schneider, proceeded to make the bishop say exactly the opposite of what anyone with two eyes and a brain could take out of the words, claiming the bishop said the SSPX were in schism.

Christopher Ferrara wrote about it in the Remnant.

Dr. Peter Chojnowski also did his homework on Carroll, Voris, Fr Nicholson, and a number of other figures regarding their Opus Dei connections, but it also sheds light on the bias inherent in ChurchMilitant.

----------------------

Listen, I think there reason to have a discussion about the topics, and I certainly don't require that everyone take my position on things, but that discussion means taking up the ideas that are being circulated, not just replying with cut-and-paste quotes which really don't address the issue at hand.

One place we could start is with that original question. What are you trying to say about "schimsatic" rites? How does that apply to the position that Dave (which seems to also be the same as the SSPX)? What is your objection to his position? Why is it "harmful"?

If you can elaborate and focus on those issues, perhaps we can have a decent discussion on the topic. And even if we do not change our minds, at least we would understand each other a bit better.
Reply
#49
(01-05-2018, 04:44 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: What does this mean? How is a rite "schismatic"?

Since the definition of "schism" is willful rejection of the legitimate authority of the Papacy or Ordinary, I'm a bit confused how you mean to apply this to some liturgical rite.

Dave01 said: "Obviously this is a rather contentious issue - my opinion is that of the SSPX; that (very briefly stated) the New Mass is not a representation of the Catholic faith, and thus, upon realization of this fact, one cannot attend the NO except in special circumstances, just as one could not normally attend any other objectively schismatic rite."

Being an OF attendee every Sunday and Holy Day I'm able to attend and then coming here and reading stuff like this ends up putting a bad taste in my mouth. I feel like a black sheep on this forum at times.

"He did this with Bishop Schneider, who after his two visits to the SSPX seminaries, praised them and defended them from the charge of schism, even saying he saw no reason that the SSPX could not be immediately recognized as is. Voris, even after asking for a clarification from Bishop Schneider, proceeded to make the bishop say exactly the opposite of what anyone with two eyes and a brain could take out of the words, claiming the bishop said the SSPX were in schism."

Cardinal Burke recently reiterated that they are in schism.

I think where we can both agree is that their situation is messy.
Reply
#50
(01-05-2018, 07:16 AM)In His Love Wrote: Cardinal Burke recently reiterated that they are in schism.

Which is demonstrably false, with such loose and uncanonical argumentation being beneath a man of that level of expertise on the subject.

What was a mess was his commentary on that "schism", easily found online.

The Cardinal was asked about the SSPX Marriage question with the recent grant of faculties.

Instead of answering that question he, off-the-cuff, starts talking about the SSPX in general, frequently pausing to figure out what to say. Confuses the Archbishop's consecration of bishops (which was not called a schism by John Paul II, but a "schismatic act") with the present priests of the SSPX, who were never under any canonical penalty for that action.

He then goes far beyond what Benedict XVI wrote in with regard to the removal of the excommunications of the bishops, who merely said that for doctrinal reasons the SSPX priests are not excommunicated but "have no legitimate ministry" when the Cardinal says, "It is not legitimate to attend Mass or receive the sacraments in a church that is under the direction of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X."

He then immediately admits that SSPX have faculties for marriages (which means they are legitimate), but adds, "There is no canonical explanation for it." Why? Beacuse of the "confusion in the Church".

That's a mess and is patently and demonstrably false.

The legislator, Pope Francis, can and did grant faculties to the SSPX for Confessions and Marriages (stating that his purpose was to remove any doubt among the faithful that these are legitimate). He has also given, through the CDF permission to ordain without dismissorial letters (related by Bishop Fellay in 2016). The Marriage issue specifically allows SSPX priests to celebrate Mass. The Ecclesia Dei Commssion for years consistently said that SSPX Masses are legitimate to attend, fulfill the Sunday obligation and even a modest sum could be donated (and that was even before Summorum Pontificum and the removal of the excommunications). Extreme Unction and Confirmation were never a question.

That's seven sacraments, all made certainly "legitimate" (i.e. legal) by those who have the authority to do so.

No matter how you dress up that pig, it's still a pig. The Cardinal shot from the hip in his answer to this question, and was incorrect. Such is easy to show.

People make mistakes, but when you are a man of that level of learning, you don't shoot from the hip and make off-the-cuff statements. People expect studied and well-formed answers, which is precisely why people who dislike the SSPX are quoting the Cardinal. People value his well-formed opinion, as well they should.

Sadly, this one is not a well-formed opinion, and would have at least been in a more fitting environment if it were an press interview given on an airplane.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)