Is it ever OK to attend a Novus Ordo Mass?
#21
I did not say the SSPX is in schism, I do not get to make such determinations.  As I’ve said previously, I personally believe they are schismatic.  They are definitely canonically irregular.

For your reading pleasure, from the SSPX on the NO Mass:
However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful. For the end does not justify the means. Consequently, although it is a good thing to want to assist at Mass and satisfy one’s Sunday obligation, it is never permitted to use a sinful means to do this. To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin. It is opportunism. Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available.  [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]

Source: http://archives.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/c...dnovusordo
Reply
#22
I think we should remember who it is that we encounter when we go to mass.
There was an incident in the life of St Teresa of Avila. There was a priest who was having an affair with a particular woman. (Where was the bishop while all this was going on?) This priest appeared to her surrounded by the devils and they held him as their slave. Yet Jesus appeared to her in all his glory in this priest's hands and told her that his love for was so great that he willingly allowed himself to be handled by this enemy of his in order to be with her.
Reply
#23
(11-27-2020, 01:14 AM)Pandora Wrote: I did not say the SSPX is in schism, I do not get to make such determinations.  As I’ve said previously, I personally believe they are schismatic.  They are definitely canonically irregular.

No, you did not say they were in schism, but I was just simply saying that they are not. I would agree with you that they have a schismatic attitude, especially considering your quote on what they say about the Sunday obligation and the NO. That's completely false, and it's positions and attitudes such as these that are preventing their situation from being normalized.

The SSPX simply don't want regularity. To achieve it, they would have to admit they have been wrong. The Curia would also have to admit they have been wrong about things too. Nobody wants to admit they've been wrong.
[-] The following 1 user Likes NSMSSS's post:
  • Pandora
Reply
#24
(11-27-2020, 01:14 AM)Pandora Wrote: I did not say the SSPX is in schism, I do not get to make such determinations.  As I’ve said previously, I personally believe they are schismatic.

I am glad that you see that none of us here have the ability to judge a canonical crime. We both agree, then. There are two problem with this "personal" approach, as I see it, though.

  1. You personally believe something which the authorities who have the ability to make such a determination have not made, and this against actions by those same authorities which war against the idea of schism (e.g. the granting of an ecclesial mission by granting faculties, the permission to ordain, the jurisdiction to operate and judge in ecclesiastical trials).

    As a result, you make this entirely subjective, and then have no standing to argue with an someone who says that they "personally" believe that the Novus Ordo Mass is a danger to their Faith or a sacrilege, and so refuses to attend it. If you can "personally" believe something contrary to what the authorities in the Church have said, you necessarily concede the very point you are making by the quote from Fr Peter Scott. If you can "personally" believe that the SSPX is in schism (or schismatic, which is the same thing), then why doesn't Fr Scott get to determine that he "personally believes" the Novus Ordo Mass harmful to souls?

  2. While you are correct that neither of us can judge someone or a group guilty of an ecclesiastical crime, by claiming your personal belief that they, nevertheless, acting in a criminal manner, is to say you personally believe they are guilty of moral sin. Are you therefore claiming that all SSPX faithful and members (priests, sisters, seminarians, brothers) are guilty of the moral sin of schism, even if they cannot by you be judged guilty of the ecclesiastical crime of schism?
(11-27-2020, 01:14 AM)Pandora Wrote:  They are definitely canonically irregular.

What does this mean?

Can you please cite the relevant Canon Law or relevant present authority who asserts this (i.e. CDF, or Pope) and not just a past statement from 1988-2009 as many people do (as if nothing has changed since 1988 or 2009)?

(11-27-2020, 01:14 AM)Pandora Wrote: For your reading pleasure, from the SSPX on the NO Mass:
However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful. For the end does not justify the means. Consequently, although it is a good thing to want to assist at Mass and satisfy one’s Sunday obligation, it is never permitted to use a sinful means to do this. To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin. It is opportunism. Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available.  [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]

Source: http://archives.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/c...dnovusordo

You post this as if this is a damning condemnation of the SSPX, meaning you think it obviously wrong. That's fine, but if you're going to post something like that, as if it is incorrect, then you need to justify why it is so, not just assume it. Many people obviously agree with Fr Scott, so if you do not, and you think it so obvious that others should see the SSPX in a bad light, then you need to explain why this statement is incorrect.

As far as I see there are three reasons it could be incorrect :

1. Fr Scott is factually incorrect that the "New Mass [is] a sacrilege."

2. Fr Scott is incorrect in his logic, and the conclusion does not flow from the premises.

3. Fr Scott is incorrect in his moral theology, and even if the "New Mass [were] a sacrilege" it would be necessary to attend to fulfil one's Sunday obligation.

I would assume your argument would likely be the first of these, and perhaps you might argue the third. I doubt many people think he is correct with his evaluation of the New Mass, and the moral theology, but incorrect with his conclusions.

First, I would note that again, by claiming the ability to subjectively determine things above, you have effectively gutted the ability to object now when someone take a "personal" opinion here. Leaving that aside, in case you decide a different approach is better, I will point out the flaws in the argument here.

While I won't write a treatise, the SSPX did to show their objections to the Novus Ordo Mass called The Problem of the Liturgical Reform (pdf). One can argue with the official position which derives from this, but their conclusion after 111 pages of theological and liturgical arguments, hundreds of footnote references, and dozens of sources from the Magisterium is :

Quote:The doctrine of the Paschal mystery, with its serious doctrinal deficiencies, is, then, at origin of the liturgical reform. Certainly, the reformed missal does not deny Catholic dogma outright, but its authors have so oriented the gestures and the words, they have made such significant omissions and introduced numerous ambiguous expressions, and all in order to make the rite conform to the theology of the Paschal mystery and to give expression to it. Consequently, the new missal no longer propagates the lex credendi of the Church, but rather a doctrine that smacks of heterodoxy. That is why one cannot say that the reformed rite of Mass of 1969 is “orthodox” in the etymological sense of the word: it does not offer “right praise” to God. Equally, one cannot say that the rite of Mass resulting from the reform of 1969 is that of the Church, even if it was conceived by churchmen. And lastly, one cannot say that the new missal is for the faithful “the first and indispensable source of the true Christian spirit,” (St Pius X, Tra le sollicitudini) where the Church “communicates in abundance the treasures of the depositum fidei, of the truth of Christ.” (Pius XII, Allocutio on Pastoral Liturgy). In light of these serious deficiencies, “the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine appropriate for our salvation is a categorical refusal to accept this reformation.” (Msgr Marcel Lefebvre, Declaration of 21 Nov 1974). In such a situation, we are therefore obliged to hold fast to the traditional liturgy, which is certainly worthy of God, which has never been abrogated, and which has produced so many fruits of holiness down the ages. That is why, without any rebellion, bitterness or resentment on our part, but rather because we are persuaded that by so doing we cannot render greater service to the holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff and to future generations, we follow the adjuration that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X addressed to us on September 23, 1979:

Quote:For the glory of the Most Blessed Trinity, for the love of Our Lord Jesus Christ, for the devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, for the love of the Church, for the love of the Pope, for the love of bishops, of priests, of all the faithful, for the salvation of the world, for the salvation of souls, keep this Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ! Keep the Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ! Keep the Mass of All Time!

You can argue with that, approach, but then you will need to address the various arguments they make, not simply dismiss such things out of hand or think posting a single quote is sufficient. If you respond by dismissing them (which was your approach with the posting of Fr Scott's answer) and that this is your "personal" belief, then you concede that the SSPX can also hold this belief, and unless there can be an airing of opinions and debate, both must be asserted as tenable.

With regard to the third point of possible objection, I propose a situation that I think will adequately prove the point that this theology is solid. Let us say that Bob is a good orthodox Catholic who lives in a small town on a Pacific island nation. The only Catholic church on the island, St Vincent's has a pastor Fr Joseph, who celebrates a horror of a liturgy. He is fully in support of women priests and eccumenism, and so he and the local Methodist pastorette always team up for a joint Sunday service. Sometimes she leads the liturgy and sometimes he does, but they always use the text of the Novus Ordo Mass. They always "concelebrate" so Fr Joseph is always actually consecrating. Fr Joseph's sermons are even less orthodox that Pastor Jane's, and he openly promotes heresy and immorality. The local bishop who is hundreds of miles away does not care, and won't fix the situation, despite complains. Thus, this ceremony is objectively a sacrilege, Bob has no appeal to an authority to fix it, but this is the only "Catholic Mass" Bob has access to. Others are hundreds of miles away by plane or boat.

Is Bob obliged to go to this "Mass" even though it is a clear and obvious sacrilege, and a objective scandal and danger to his Faith, since he has to meet his Sunday obligation?

Now, I am not saying that every Novus Ordo Mass is this bad, but I want to see if you agree that there could be a situation where the sacrilegious or scandalous character of a Mass was such that it would permit one to stay away even on Sunday.

If one would need to go anyway, then it seems that the Sunday Obligation never admits of exceptions (even though we know that it does, like distance and sickness), or that an obligation in Justice (due to the Church law of obligation) is more important than Faith (which is exposed to danger by this act of Justice).

If one would not need to go, then the argument boils down to the first point of objection : The opinion of Fr Scott is incorrect, but then one needs to deal with the arguments, which means we go back to what is above, and the whole notion of a "personal" belief.

So, I'd be curious which objection you actually make, and then perhaps some rational discussion could ensue. I'd hope you're different, Pandora, than the rest of the crowd, because rarely when this topic comes up does one find people willing to take on the argument. Usually it's just a "bash the SSPX" party on one side, and a "SSPX or nothing" on the other side.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Ioannes_L, jovan66102
Reply
#25
(11-27-2020, 12:49 PM)NSMSSS Wrote: The SSPX simply don't want regularity.

Then why have they sent delegates to theological discussions that the Holy See wanted to have? Why did they work for over a year on a Personal Prelature with the Ecclesia Dei Commission and Benedict XVI, who torpedoed the progress at the last minute when the German and French Bishops objected to any agreement? Why did Archbishop Lefebvre, before the Consecrations delay the date four times, and enter into discussions with the Holy See, only to have the guarantee of a bishop pulled from him last minute, upon which he decided to proceed anyway, seeing that Cardinal Ratzinger was not serious about an agreement? Why have received official visitors from the Holy See whenever asked? Why have the sent people for meetings with the Pope and others in Rome at every request?

The SSPX has made plenty of missteps, but I don't think they can realistically be seen as not making a good faith attempt to normalize their situation. The problem has always been that the Holy See demands more of them than they do of other Catholics, such as professing that Vatican II is without any error and fully orthodox (which even diocesan priests are not demanded to accept).

Given you are also, obviously not one of the SSPX faithful, so likely not one of their faithful or members who has any insight into the clear inner workings, I think it a bit prideful that you would think it possible to judge what their superiors want, as if you knew their minds.

So, we're left with judging actions, and everything I see suggests that the SSPX leadership is willing, without compromising any doctrine, or the common good of their order which they have a responsibility to attain, nor the common good of the souls who rely on them, to bend over backwards when the Holy See asks. That does not look to me like "not wanting" some normalcy. It looks to be like quite the opposite.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Ioannes_L, jovan66102, Some Guy
Reply
#26
(11-27-2020, 06:32 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: The SSPX has made plenty of missteps, but I don't think they can realistically be seen as not making a good faith attempt to normalize their situation. The problem has always been that the Holy See demands more of them than they do of other Catholics, such as professing that Vatican II is without any error and fully orthodox (which even diocesan priests are not demanded to accept).

But that's just it.  The Council is without error and fully orthodox (in so far as one can look at the vagueness of the documents and say, "Well, you're not wrong").  It is a whole host of scandalous actions that have been done in the name of the Council that are erroneous and unorthodox.  The Holy See should clean this up.  Fifty plus years on they haven't, but it doesn't change that the Council stands.  The SSPX appear to expect a recantation, but it will never happen; and because the Holy See doesn't suppress them and allows them to continue, even further relaxing things for them by an increasing granting of faculties, do they have any reason to turn around and say, "Well, we were wrong, so yes, we'll accept the Council"?  Not really.  They continue to flourish despite their situation.

(11-27-2020, 06:32 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Given you are also, obviously not one of the SSPX faithful, so likely not one of their faithful or members who has any insight into the clear inner workings, I think it a bit prideful that you would think it possible to judge what their superiors want, as if you knew their minds.

I only go based on what I have heard from those who have a far better knowledge of the ins-and-outs of the SSPX and what they have relayed to me.  The other thing is this: Many within the SSPX don't accept the NO when it is a valid Mass.  This is another thing on which they would have to make an about-face if they wanted canonical regularity.  There are those who would certainly defect from them if this were to happen.  Such people might drift to schismatic groups such as the SSPV as a result.  They wouldn't want that (and not even because of the loss of financial support that could go with it).  It could hardly be considered scandal to accept the truth, but there are those would be scandalized by such a stark change in position.  How do you handle this?
[-] The following 1 user Likes NSMSSS's post:
  • LionHippo
Reply
#27
Havent read the whole thread, but I think it's worth pointing out that even Fr Ripperger has said that you should not attend a NO Mass that makes a sacrilege of the Holy Sacrifice. Obviously that's a less strict position than the SSPX, but I just wanted to throw it out there that it isn't just SSPX priests telling people not to attend inappropriate Masses.
Ave Christus Rex!
Reply
#28
(11-28-2020, 01:50 PM)Some Guy Wrote: Havent read the whole thread, but I think it's worth pointing out that even Fr Ripperger has said that you should not attend a NO Mass that makes a sacrilege of the Holy Sacrifice. Obviously that's a less strict position than the SSPX, but I just wanted to throw it out there that it isn't just SSPX priests telling people not to attend inappropriate Masses.

Correct, no one should ever knowingly and willingly participate in a sacrilege. The question is when does the Mass become a sacrilege? At that point, the Mass would also become invalid, wouldn't it?

I've seen my fair share of liturgical abuse but only once have been witness to a Mass that may have been compromised by the priest's incompetence. Even then, I'm not sure what to have made of that incident.

For some, however, the moment the priest does anything that's not in the red or says something that's not in the black, then the Mass has become "sacrilegious". I doubt the bar's quite that high, but where does it lie?
Reply
#29
(11-28-2020, 01:57 PM)NSMSSS Wrote: Correct, no one should ever knowingly and willingly participate in a sacrilege.  The question is when does the Mass become a sacrilege?  At that point, the Mass would also become invalid, wouldn't it?

No, it wouldn't. 'Valid' means that there's a consecration of the bread and wine and the Sacrifice is offered. The priest could do all sorts of other things during Mass to make a mockery of it, including dressing as a clown, but that wouldn't invalidate the Mass.

(11-28-2020, 01:57 PM)NSMSSS Wrote: But that's just it.  The Council is without error and fully orthodox (in so far as one can look at the vagueness of the documents and say, "Well, you're not wrong").

Prior teaching of the Church says that error has no rights. Vatican II says everyone has a right to freedom of religion and that civil authorities are bound to recognise that right. If there's a way to make those two both true, the Church has never explained it. How can the SSPX be expected to say the Council is completely orthodox when nobody will explain how apparently-contradictory statements aren't?
Reply
#30
(11-28-2020, 02:57 PM)Paul Wrote: Prior teaching of the Church says that error has no rights. Vatican II says everyone has a right to freedom of religion and that civil authorities are bound to recognise that right. If there's a way to make those two both true, the Church has never explained it. How can the SSPX be expected to say the Council is completely orthodox when nobody will explain how apparently-contradictory statements aren't?

I look at that statement in this way: Sure, "freedom of religion", which is to say one cannot be forced to follow Catholicism nor any other religion (true and consistent with Church teaching).  "Civil authorities are bound to recognize that right."  Sure, which is to say you cannot impose a state religion, whatever it may be, and force people to follow it.  People have the right to follow the religion of their choosing (which, again, means you cannot force someone to convert, which is what the Church teaches).

Now, how you want to go about that can vary.  If you want to be like the Ottoman empire and just make it highly inconvenient for anyone who wants to practice a religion other than Catholicism, that has some clout.  Much as I would like to see a Catholic state imposed from above, the way to build a lasting Catholic state would be from the bottom up, so society would come to naturally reflect the values of the Church and such things as a crucifix on the desk of the head of state would be seen as a normal thing.

People don't have a right to persist in error, but nor can people be forced to convert to the truth.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)