Is it ever OK to attend a Novus Ordo Mass?
#11
(11-26-2020, 07:55 AM)NSMSSS Wrote:
(11-26-2020, 02:20 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Why don't you ask your SSPX priest (who has care of your soul) instead of a bunch of random people on an internet forum who are never going to agree on this kind of issue?

Because there is a clear answer to this question: Yes, because the Novus Ordo is a valid Mass.  Case closed.  Those who say otherwise are wrong.
 
Yes.  Not only is it valid, it is the preferred Mass of the Church today.
[-] The following 1 user Likes LionHippo's post:
  • austenbosten
Reply
#12
(11-26-2020, 09:37 AM)Pandora Wrote: I’ve heard, and I could be 100% incorrect, that the SSPX considers the NO Mass sinful, attending/assisting at a NO Mass a sin, and recommends praying the Rosary instead of going to a NO Mass.  it goes without saying they do not believe it fulfills one’s Sunday obligation.

Not sure if that's on their books or not, but I do know personally one SSPX layman who asserts that the Novus Ordo is invalid and illicit ("It was never properly promulgated" or some such line is his logic).  In either case, SSPX adherents generally do not speak with any favourability towards the NO.

(11-26-2020, 09:47 AM)austenbosten Wrote: FSSP and ICKSP may have good priests (just like the sedevacantist CMRI) but the reasons for their establishment are suspect.  FSSP and ICKSP wouldn't have existed had it not been for the FSSPX and Archbishop Lefevbre.

No, but had Archbishop Lefebvre not defied the Holy See with the Écône consecrations, the Society would never have fallen into schism and the FSSP would have had no reason to be established because the SSPX could have remained in good standing.

I view the FSSP as more or less the continuation of the original mission of the SSPX.
[-] The following 1 user Likes NSMSSS's post:
  • Pandora
Reply
#13
(11-26-2020, 09:47 AM)austenbosten Wrote: That's because those Fraternities were established after the Econe consecrations and Rome became worried that SSPX would pull too many away from the NO.  Remember before 1988 you pretty much couldn't find a TLM anywhere.  FSSP and ICKSP may have good priests (just like the sedevacantist CMRI) but the reasons for their establishment are suspect.  FSSP and ICKSP wouldn't have existed had it not been for the FSSPX and Archbishop Lefevbre.

No kidding, and here I thought the Écône “consecrations” being illicit and invalid was the driving reason for the breakaway...

I wasn’t making the argument that the ICKSP and the FSSP, in particular, didn’t begin as offshoots, at least conceptually, of the SSPX.  They are both, however, in full communion with Rome. The SSPX is not.

Objectively no sedevacantist group can have good priests, unless we’re using those words in the same way one might describe a good Protestant minister, since that’s essentially what they are.

By your logic, are diocesan TLM and groups founded pre-Écône the only ones not suspect?  What about the Eastern Churches that came back into communion with Rome after the Great Schism? Are they suspect, too? They were all palsy-walsy with the Orthodox for a while, maybe we shouldn’t trust their Divine Liturgies, either.
Reply
#14
(11-25-2020, 09:22 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(11-25-2020, 08:14 PM)Steven Wrote: You can see here a photo I took from the sacristy one day.  That is an Ordinary Form Mass, although only an astute eye would be able to tell.

I'm not seeing a picture, just a big blank space where it should be.

I edited it to add a smaller preview.  Hopefully it loads faster now!
"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church -- which is, of course, quite a different thing." -Ven. Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

"Let me repeat this sentence. It is impossible in human language to exaggerate the importance of being in a chapel or church before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. That sentence is the talisman of the highest sanctity." -Fr. John Hardon, S.J.
Reply
#15
(11-26-2020, 07:55 AM)NSMSSS Wrote:
(11-26-2020, 02:20 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Why don't you ask your SSPX priest (who has care of your soul) instead of a bunch of random people on an internet forum who are never going to agree on this kind of issue?

Because there is a clear answer to this question: Yes, because the Novus Ordo is a valid Mass.  Case closed.  Those who say otherwise are wrong.

The SSPX doesn't claim that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid, so that's a bit of a red herring.

That said, a Black Mass and many other sacrilegiously celebrated Masses are valid, so long as the Host and Chalice are properly consecrated.

The discussion cannot just center around validity. That's a bare minimum standard for attending a Mass. If it were not valid you absolutely could not attend, but there might be many other factors which moral theologians spend a great deal of time discussing in treatises on the obligation. If they discuss many exceptions, it cannot be as simplistic an issue as you're trying to make it out to be.
[-] The following 5 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • abububba, austenbosten, HailGilbert, Ioannes_L, Some Guy
Reply
#16
(11-26-2020, 10:46 AM)Pandora Wrote: I wasn’t making the argument that the ICKSP and the FSSP, in particular, didn’t begin as offshoots, at least conceptually, of the SSPX.  They are both, however, in full communion with Rome. The SSPX is not.

The Holy See disagrees. Those who are not in communion with the Church cannot receive faculties from the Church. Their priests cannot be given jurisdiction to judge ecclesiastical criminal cases. Both of those things have happened. My local SSPX priest also has faculties from the bishop to witness marriages. Again, impossible to give to a schismatic.

Schism has a proper ecclesiastical definition. The SSPX do not fit it.

That does not mean they are 100% right about everything, nor does it make everything they say or do good, but we have to stop this subjective opinions and misinformation about them (and the other groups). There are objective facts, and oddly, if one follows what the Holy See itself has said and done, there is no way to come up with "schism"

(11-26-2020, 10:46 AM)Pandora Wrote: Objectively no sedevacantist group can have good priests, unless we’re using those words in the same way one might describe a good Protestant minister, since that’s essentially what they are.

Again, you throw around terms making them meaningless.

Sedevacantist reject that there is any pope. Disobedience, even if that is what the SSPX does, is not sedevacantism, nor is its quasi-sedevacantism. Most Sedevacantists would not want to be associated with the SSPX because of their support of the Pope, which makes you claim pretty silly.

Similarly, Protestants reject the Papacy itself and Papal authority. That's neither the SSPX nor any Sedevacantist group I know of. In fact, they claim to support the papacy by questioning the quasi-heretical statements and actions of Popes to defend the Office of the Papacy. Even if they are wrong, that demonstrates they accept the principle, which is exactly what Protestant reject.
[-] The following 5 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • abububba, austenbosten, HailGilbert, Ioannes_L, Some Guy
Reply
#17
(11-26-2020, 10:43 AM)NSMSSS Wrote: No, but had Archbishop Lefebvre not defied the Holy See with the Écône consecrations, the Society would never have fallen into schism and the FSSP would have had no reason to be established because the SSPX could have remained in good standing.

I view the FSSP as more or less the continuation of the original mission of the SSPX.

That suggests an ignorance of the history of the SSPX before 1988, then.

The group was founded with approbation of the Church. It was only after a private conference to seminarians, meant to repair for scandalous visitors from the Holy See who were pushing married priests and moral and doctrinal errors, was published by a French journalist that a group of Cardinals got together and condemned the SSPX for the private statement of their founder, and then told the local bishop he could suppress them. All of these actions were contrary to Canon Law, and yet the suspensive appeal was never heard.

Since 1976, then, the SSPX has been operating but the Holy See considers it a "suppressed" society. If the FSSP is a continuation of this, then they are trying to continue a suppressed society, of which all the founders were members. Thus, while they may have no supported the consecrations in 1988 (which many did—most of the founders attended the ceremonies and publicly participated in them), they were for many years fine with disobedience to the Pope through remaining apparently suspended priests in a suppressed society.

If they see themselves as the continuation of Msgr Lefebvre's work, which their founding documents do, then the second problem here is that they claim they are continuing the work of a man who they say went into schism. That's a pretty silly approach. It's like an English priest after the Anglican Schism, separating from Cranmer and yet claiming that he was "continuing the real work of Cranmer without falling into schism."

I have no issue with the FSSP doing good work and trying to fulfill their mission. I'd ask, though, since you seem to know it, what per se is their mission? If they are just continuing the SSPX's mission, and I'm incorrect in my view here, could you cite their founding documents to describe what their proper mission is?
[-] The following 4 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • abububba, austenbosten, HailGilbert, Ioannes_L
Reply
#18
(11-26-2020, 10:46 AM)Pandora Wrote: I wasn’t making the argument that the ICKSP and the FSSP, in particular, didn’t begin as offshoots, at least conceptually, of the SSPX.  They are both, however, in full communion with Rome. The SSPX is not.

But the SSPX is not in schism.  They are "canonically irregular".  I'll admit I have very little understanding of this term, but given the murkiness of the situation, it's why I avoid SSPX Masses.

Further, from my observations, it's not so often the SSPX clergy that are finding themselves in troublesome positions these days.  It's the SSPX faithful, and nowhere is this more generally clear than in those dioceses and municipalities where the SSPX operates alongside a canonically regular TLM offered by the FSSP, ICKSP or a diocesan priest.  It's one thing if your only option for the TLM for fifty miles around is the SSPX and you choose to assist at it and attach yourself to them because you love the TLM and the Novus Ordos closer to home are closer to sacrilege than they ought to be.  It's another thing if you're in a diocese such as mine and a city such as mine where you have the FSSP operating a parish but the SSPX continually renting out halls and other places to have Mass every week (since they seem to be unable to get their own building as a permanent home) and people deliberately choose to adhere to the SSPX to spite to the magesterium.  That's another reason why I stay away from the SSPX.  There are those who choose to attach themselves to them (and I'm not saying everyone who attaches themselves to them does this) deliberately because they do not want an association with the magesterium and believe they can more or less operate outside the jurisdiction of the local diocesan bishop and give little attention to what the Holy See says and does.  Sure, a lot coming out of Rome these days is rather pathetic.  We still don't get to pick and choose what parts of the hierarchy we want to follow.

(11-26-2020, 02:13 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: The SSPX doesn't claim that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid, so that's a bit of a red herring.

The Society may not claim that as an official position, but talk to SSPXers, and there are those who will say the NO is invalid.

(11-26-2020, 02:13 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: That said, a Black Mass and many other sacrilegiously celebrated Masses are valid, so long as the Host and Chalice are properly consecrated.

I have no idea what happens in a Black Mass, but are they not the complete antithesis of what the Mass is (a re-presentation of the Sacrifice on Calvary)?  In what sense would an act of sacrilege be valid when it aims to accomplish different ends than the Mass?

(11-26-2020, 02:32 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: The group was founded with approbation of the Church. It was only after a private conference to seminarians, meant to repair for scandalous visitors from the Holy See who were pushing married priests and moral and doctrinal errors, was published by a French journalist that a group of Cardinals got together and condemned the SSPX for the private statement of their founder, and then told the local bishop he could suppress them. All of these actions were contrary to Canon Law, and yet the suspensive appeal was never heard.

Since 1976, then, the SSPX has been operating but the Holy See considers it a "suppressed" society.

I readily admit I know very little of the history in this area, but if the Society is "suppressed", how does one interpret the increasing granting of "status", if you will, to the Society by Rome (faculties to hear confessions, etc.)?  It doesn't seem to me that Rome would be granting things to a society that is suppressed, which says to me there is some level of legitimate standing to them and what they do (which makes sense given that they are not in schism but are canonically irregular).

(11-26-2020, 02:32 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: If the FSSP is a continuation of this, then they are trying to continue a suppressed society, of which all the founders were members. Thus, while they may have no supported the consecrations in 1988 (which many did—most of the founders attended the ceremonies and publicly participated in them), they were for many years fine with disobedience to the Pope through remaining apparently suspended priests in a suppressed society.

Again, I know little of the history, but from what I have been told, Archbishop Lefebvre was told he was going to get his bishop (as in one approved by Rome).  He rather didn't like their interference, if you will, so again, this says to me the society was not suppressed but had legitimate standing; for why would the Holy See be granting permissions to ordain a bishop to a suppressed society?

Further, I can't speak for who was there and who wasn't in 1988, but having heard it from Fr. Josef Bisig's own lips that he and those who were at the founding of the FSSP did not approve of the consecrations, did not want to be brought into schism and excommunication and wanted to operate in full communion with Rome, they took the steps to establish an apostolic society that wanted to operate in communion with Rome, and they were granted their request.

(11-26-2020, 02:32 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: If they see themselves as the continuation of Msgr Lefebvre's work, which their founding documents do, then the second problem here is that they claim they are continuing the work of a man who they say went into schism

I don't know the ins and outs of the whole situation, but I have been told by people who know him that Father Bisig does believe Archbishop Lefebvre is in Heaven (or will make it there, at least).  I don't believe the FSSP has any ill will against Archbishop Lefebvre.  There are those, such as myself, that do disagree with some of his methods but do recognize that the TLM is alive and well today thanks to his efforts.  It would be a whole separate discussion on the methods and meanings of the historical actions of the SSPX, but I would say that until close to his end, Archbishop Lefebvre truly did want to operate in communion with Rome.  He unfortunately started to develop more erratic behaviour that led to unfavourable results.

(11-26-2020, 02:32 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: I have no issue with the FSSP doing good work and trying to fulfill their mission. I'd ask, though, since you seem to know it, what per se is their mission? If they are just continuing the SSPX's mission, and I'm incorrect in my view here, could you cite their founding documents to describe what their proper mission is?

I meant that in a metaphorical sense, not a literal one.  The founding documents of the FSSP specify explicitly they want to operate in communion with Rome and chose to found a new society specifically because of what the SSPX did at Écône.  I have not read the full text of their mission statement, so I cannot comment further; but I know from being familiar with them that, more or less, at the core of their charism is fostering devotion to the Traditional Roman Rite.

In fact, my parish, St. Clement's in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, was not only the first parish established post-Vatican II to offer the Sacraments exclusively in the Traditional Roman Rite, but we were also the first parish the FSSP took charge of serving.  Thanks to Summorum Pontificum and the resulting growth of public TLM Masses, the FSSP have really made their mark of running parishes to offer the TLM under the local bishop's jurisdiction.  The TLM is flourishing thanks to this.

On a side-note, Fraternity Publications did publish a fiftieth-anniversary book a couple of years ago on my parish, Faithful in All Generations: A History of Saint Clement Parish, Ottawa, 1968-2018.  I recommend it because the story shows how despite tremendous obstacles, a group of people in the 1960s who didn't want the TLM to die took the steps to preserve it; and in the face of major challenges, they persevered and got what they desired, all while operating in communion with the local bishop and the Holy See.  It shows that you can win playing by the rules.
Reply
#19
I will never again. My mother died Easter and her No parish refused to have a mass outside.
No priest in funeral home with 10 person limit and no priest gravesite
Reply
#20
(11-26-2020, 07:09 PM)AnaCarolina Wrote: I will never again. My mother died Easter and her No parish refused to have a mass outside.
No priest in funeral home with 10 person limit and no priest gravesite

As disappointing as that is, the Sunday obligation will return at some point; and if you have no other option but the NO, you must go to fulfil your Sunday obligation.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)