The FSSP and the SSPX

[Amator Veritatis]

As far as my point that a person would usually necessarily accept the validity of the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] who receives at the traditional Mass at an indult parish, it should be recognised that there is often or at least sometimes a ciborium of hosts consecrated at the indult Mass each Sunday, so many of those assisting at such a Mass would have at least a possibility of receiving Hosts consecrated at the Mass. Besides, as Pope Pius XII notes in [i]Mediator Dei[/i], those faithful should be indulged who wish to receive Hosts consecrated at the Mass at which they are assisting, as was made clear by that learned and holy Pontiff Benedict XIV. There are various theological reasons for this which are given by Pius XII, and it seems to be a loophole of sorts for those who would wish to receive Hosts only consecrated at the traditional Mass, for such is the teaching of Benedict XIV:

"And although in addition to those to whom the celebrant gives a portion of the Victim he himself has offered in the Mass, they also participate in the same sacrifice to whom a priest distributes the Blessed Sacrament that has been reserved; however, the Church has not for this reason ever forbidden, nor does she now forbid, a celebrant to satisfy the piety and just request of those who, when present at Mass, want to become partakers of the same sacrifice, because they likewise offer it after their own manner, nay more, she approves of it and desires that it should not be omitted and would reprehend those priests through whose fault and negligence this participation would be denied to the faithful." Cf., [i]Certiores effecti[/i], par. 3, cited in [i]Mediator Dei[/i], par. 118.

[Dave]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Mar 8 2006, 04:30 PM']Yeah it is a requirement, but I do know that there are at least a few people at the FSSP Mass that I go to who do not accept the NO
[right][snapback]906779[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

So do I, actually.

[Dave]

[quote name='thedude' date='Mar 8 2006, 05:35 PM']Unfortunately, the traditional orders attract a few wolves along with the sheep.
[right][snapback]906830[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

How sad. Although I know that most traditional orders really try and weed out quasi-SSPX types, I suppose it's to be expected there are always going to be some they inadvertently overlook.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Mar 8 2006, 04:08 PM']That may very well be the case, but, just as a point of clarification, we ought recognise that a person who assists at Mass at a parish or chapel of the FSSP or ICR or a person who assists at Mass even at an indult, diocesan parish does not necessarily accept Vatican II, nor does he necessarily accept the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i], though he would, under most circumstances, necessarily accept its validity, for many Hosts distributed at the traditional Mass in indult parishes are consecrated at the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i].
[right][snapback]906712[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And therein lies the quandry.....and the oxymoronic statement.

The quandry.....how can one who doesn't accept the Missa Normativa or Vatican Council II and her reforms necessarily accept Holy Communion from the tabernacle?

The oxymoronic statement......the person who assists at a Mass or a parish of the FSSP or the Institute, etc. who does not necessarily accept the Missa Normativa, or Vatican II, but does necessarily accept the validity of the Blessed Sacrament consecrated at the Missa Normativa.

There is no reconciling that. And there is no answer which is acceptable to the quandry, other than to say that one accepts the validity of the Missa Normativa; which validates the majority issue of Vatican Council II for most.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote]

"The post-conciliar Church has not turned away from our Lord. But they have reshaped Him into an image that its proponents demand at the moment. We’ve gotten God wrong, not because we have formally disavowed Him, but because for 40 years we have wandered aimlessly articulating only partial truths about the Faith. Our traditional heritage has been ignored or occluded. We are in crisis because we don’t have God right. A Catholic’s perception of God has always been formed primarily by the Mass. The ancient Mass has been discarded. The New Mass is not invalid. That would be too easy and unbecoming the cunning genius of the evil one. There is nothing heretical about the New Mass; it is simply deficient....Let me illustrate one deficiency. The constant changing liturgical form does not convey the central attribute of God: His unchangeableness. Catholics worship Him in novel ways from week to week, from parish to parish, and from nation to nation.... They soon begin to think of God and His moral law in different ways. Catholics may even begin to think that God can change His mind about right and wrong. Artificial contraception, homosexuality, cohabitation before marriage, and divorce: all heretofore unambiguously labeled as evil are reassessed in the light of the new way we think about God."[/quote]

-Fr. McLucas is the editor of the Latin Mass Magazine

[Cam42]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Mar 8 2006, 11:33 PM']-Fr. McLucas is the editor of the Latin Mass Magazine
[right][snapback]907016[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What's your point?

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

that FSSP priests many times hold quasi-sspx positions.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Mar 8 2006, 11:45 PM']that FSSP priests  many times hold  quasi-sspx positions.
[right][snapback]907029[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Since you are big on one sentence answers......here is one for ya.....

Nope, you're wrong.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

whats with all the unconstructive criticism?

how am i wrong?

People have told me that FSSP priests they have confessed to "were total trads"

in fact SSPX and FSSP priests prayed the rosary together to stop a rap group from performing inside of a FSSP Church.

Many trads attend FSSP chapels.


im not saying all FSSP priests are trads, but some are.

you need to be more charitable.

Edited March 9, 2006 by Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

[dspen2005]

i think the point of Cam42's assertion is that you incessantly come out with these one sentence claims with nothing to back them up. Your "he said, she said" stuff also isn't very convincing. Don't you have anything else to support the frivolous claim that FSSP holds "quasi-SSPX" positions. btw, what is a "quasi-SSPX position"?? such a claim violates one of philosophy's basic laws -- the Law of Excluded Middle.

[dspen2005]

[Cam42]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Mar 9 2006, 12:19 AM']whats with all the unconstructive criticism?

how am i wrong?

People have told me that FSSP priests they have confessed to "were total trads"

in fact SSPX and FSSP priests prayed the rosary together to stop a rap group from performing inside of a FSSP Church.

Many trads attend FSSP chapels.
im not saying all FSSP priests are trads, but some are.

you need to be more charitable.
[right][snapback]907053[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Hey Sam,

I am tired of all this incessant claiming of "uncharitable." I have been charitable all the way through. I have patiently shown you your errors on SEVERAL threads. The lack of charity is not on my part, but rather on yours, for OBSTINANTLY refusing to see the other side of the point.

The reason that I made the statement about one liners (which is very uncharitable, on your part, by the way) is that you are contradicting yourself. Charity demands that I tell you when you are wrong.

It is this misguided MODERN notion of charity that we automatically need to be nice. NICE DOES NOT EQUAL CHARITY. Nice is enabling more than it is being charitable. Charity is telling the truth to those who are stuck in a rut of error.

Perhaps I am a bit sarcastic, but notice that I get sarcastic when all other means have been exhausted. Why? Perhaps that is a mode that you will understand. As it is....you need to get over this incorrect view of charity. You can't simply call out uncharity like a "get out of jail free card."

You, Sam, NEED to start taking a position and making a point. If you cannot or if you will not, you need to stop posting. One liners and quotation/citation without explaination allows for NOTHING. Also, "spoon feed" is not authentic. Notice that the vast majority of people who post here, with the exception of a few don't give one liners.

When you do that you are expecting us to all of a sudden have and ephiphany......you may deny it, but that exactly what you expect.

Here is a hint for ya.....WE ARE NOT GOING TO CONVERT TO THE SSPX SCHISM.

Honestly, do you expect us to say, "Oh my gosh, the Church has fallen into error, we better come to the SSPX?"

Seriously? It will never happen. The Church is protected from that. And the Church has survived much larger schisms than the minute and inconsequential ramblings of a retired Archbishop who was quite simply "bitter."

So, Sam....don't come to me with "uncharitable." You don't know the meaning of the word and you don't know the etimology. Christ wasn't always NICE, but He was always charitable. The truth of Tradition will speak for itself, not this contradictiory notion that you and your phishys promote.

N.B. I would have probably joined that rosary too.....that speaks nothing to anything other than taste or lack thereof.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Mar 7 2006, 06:45 PM']I should add that I have been unable to find a document suppressing the traditional Mass. Because of this fact, the Mass can be offered by any priest. Cam seems to be unaware of this fact or seems to deny it outright. If there is any disagreement on this point, I would be interested in reading an authoritative document suppressing the traditional Mass. It is noteworthy at least that a small convocation of Cardinals was called by John Paul II in 1986 to answer questions regarding the use of the traditional Mass. The commission, comprised of Cardinals Ratzinger, Mayer, Oddi, Stickler, Casaroli, Gantin, Innocenti, Palaz-zini, and Tomko, determined that the traditional Mass had never been forbidden, that priests are not obliged to offer the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] and that bishops cannot forbid or place restrictions on the celebration of the traditional rite of Mass whether in public or in private. Though their findings be not authoritative in themselves, they are certainly an illustration of the mens ecclesiae in this matter. In addition, eight of the nine Cardinals favoured an official document making their findings clear and public. These facts have been affirmed by Cardinal Stickler, one of the Cardinals called for the commission.
[right][snapback]905709[/snapback][/right][/quote]

Wanna show me where I have EVER said that the Tridentine Mass has been suppressed? I have never said that. I affectionately support and assist at the Tridentine Mass. What I have said, is that the faithful have a right to the Sacraments, however we do not have a right to the Sacraments of our choosing. We must be obedient to will of the Church. The indult is precisely that, an indult. It is not suppressed, but it is not the Missa Normativa.

The Church has reformed the Liturgy. That is not unheard of. That has happened several times in the history of the Church. We have a right to the Missa Normativa promulgated by the Church. That is the Mass of Paul VI. The previous Holy Father made a very liberal decision in allowing, for the sake of unity and genuine affection; the previous Mass.

This is supported by the 1984 document [url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/11/DocumentIndex/395"]Quattuor Abhinc Annos[/url]. Specifically;

[quote name='Quattor Abhinc Annos #2']The celebration of Mass in question must take place exclusively for the benefit of those who petition it; the celebration must be in a church or oratory designated by the diocesan bishop (but not in parish churches, unless, in extraordinary instances, the bishop allows this); the celebration may take place only on those days and in those circumstances approved by the bishop, whether for an individual instance or as a regular occurrence.[/quote]

Now, with all that being said, how about representing my position accurately? I would appreciate it. It is bad form in a debate to out right lie about a person's position, regardless of the "type" of English used. Capice?

[Amator Veritatis]

If it be poor form to misrepresent the position of another, perhaps you would do well to read carefully the words I have written. I did not assert that you had denied the fact that the traditional Mass had been suppressed. My statement was that you have seemed to ignore or perhaps deny the following statement: "Because of this fact, the Mass can be offered by any priest." Even if you have not denied this directly, my statement is and was that you seem to be unaware of it or even to deny it outright, though, because I have qualified the statement, it is implicit that I have not necessarily read a statement by you denying it outright. If I had known you to deny it outright, I would have stated so exclusively and without qualification. Because I have not read all of your writings, I am unable to state that you have not denied it outright, and because of the other statements you have made on this issue illustrate your tendency to such conclusions, I made it clear that such a position was at least a possibility. In addition, I would be careful in accusing others of telling a lie, at least if you accept the definition of a lie as posed by St. Thomas of Aquin, i.e., a statement at variance with the mind. Because you are incapable of knowing the mind of another, you would be incapable of convincing him of sin at least as regards lying. If you wish to present my claims as erroneous or false, I would invite you to do so, should they be such, though, as I have stated, they were certainly not erroneous at least in this case. I must retire from the thread and Phatmass for the remainder of the day, for it is my mother's birthday, and I have obligations in that regard. I hope to be able to continue this discussion and others in the near future.

Edited March 9, 2006 by Amator Veritatis

[Era Might]

[quote]priests are not obliged to offer the Novus Ordo Missae and that bishops cannot forbid or place restrictions on the celebration of the traditional rite of Mass whether in public or in private.[/quote]

This is demonstrably false, on two counts.

First, if this was indeed the mind of Pope John Paul II, he would never have issued an "Ecclesia Dei" indult. An indult is, by definition, an exception to the law. John Paul left the administration of this indult to the local Bishop. There was no "right" to the usage of the Tridentine Missal. It was granted as an exception, subject to the will of the local ordinary.

The conclusions of a commission do not necessarily indicate the "mens ecclesiae". Pope Paul VI established a commission to study artificial birth control, and it recommended that the Church approve contraceptive use. Of course, Paul decided against their conclusions, and later issued "Humanae Vitae".

Second, Pope Paul VI stated explicitly that the promulgation of his Missal was "in place of" the Tridentine Missal, and not alongside of it:

[quote]We must attach to this refusal to respect the liturgical norms laid down a special grievousness in that it introduces division where Christ's love has gathered us together in unity, namely, into the liturgy and the eucharistic sacrifice. For our part, in the name of tradition, we beseech all of our children to celebrate the rites of the restored liturgy with dignity and fervent devotion. [b]Use of the old Ordo Missae is in no way left to the choice of priests or people[/b]. The Instruction of 14 June 1971 provided the celebration of Mass according to the former rite would be permitted, by faculty from the Ordinary, only for aged or sick priests offering the sacrifice without a congregation. [b]The new Ordo Missae was promulgated in place of the old[/b] after careful deliberation and to carry out the directives of Vatican Council II. For a like reason, our predecessor St. Pius V, after the Council of Trent, commanded the use of the Roman Missal revised by his authority.

--Pope Paul VI, Consistory allocution of May 24th, 1976[/quote]

There is no document that I'm aware of which was written to "suppress" the Tridentine Missal. No such document was necessary. It was always understood that the Missal of Paul VI replaced the Tridentine Missal.

Edited March 9, 2006 by Era Might

[Cam42]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis']I did not assert that you had denied the fact that the traditional Mass had been suppressed. My statement was that you have seemed to ignore or perhaps deny the following statement: "Because of this fact, the Mass can be offered by any priest." Even if you have not denied this directly, my statement is and was that you seem to be unaware of it or even to deny it outright, though, because I have qualified the statement, it is implicit that I have not necessarily read a statement by you denying it outright.[/quote]

Nope, don't buy the backtracking....sorry.

You said:

[quote]Cam seems to be unaware of this fact or seems to deny it [suppression of the Tridentine Mass] outright.[/quote]

I am not letting you off the hook. If you are going to change your position fine, but don't make it seem that your position is consistent, because it is not.

Again, show me where I have alluded to or explicitly stated that a priest cannot celebrate the Tridentine Mass? I am fully aware of it and I fully support it.

And to support Era:
[quote]There is no document that I'm aware of which stated "the Tridentine Missal is suppressed". No such document was necessary. It was always evident that the Missal of Paul VI was issued to replace the Tridentine Missal.[/quote]

That is exactly right. Here is part of the decree:

[quote name='Second Editio Typica' date=' 1975']This Congregation for Divine Worship, at the mandate of the Pope, now promulgates and declares to be the editio typica this new edition of the Roman Missal prepared in accord with the decrees of Vatican Council II.

As to use of the new Missal, the Latin edition may be put into use as soon as it is published, with the necessary adjustments of saints' days until the revised calendar is put into definitive effect.[/quote]

[quote name='Missale Romanum']The Missale Romanum was promulgated in 1570 by our predecessor St. Pius V, in execution of the decree of the Council of Trent. It has been recognized by all as one of the many admirable results that the Council achieved for the benefit of the entire Church of Christ. For four centuries it provided Latin-rite priests with norms for the celebration of the eucharistic sacrifice; moreover messengers of the Gospel brought this Missal to almost the entire world. Innumerable holy men and women nurtured their spiritual life on its readings from Scripture and on its prayer texts. In large part these prayer texts owed their arrangement to St. Gregory the Great......

No one should think, however, that this revision of the Roman Missal has come out of nowhere. The progress in liturgical studies during the last four centuries has certainly prepared the way. Just after the Council of Trent, the study of "ancient manuscripts in the Vatican library and elsewhere," as St. Pius V attests in the Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum, helped greatly in the correction of the Roman Missal. Since then, however, other ancient sources have been discovered and published and liturgical formularies of the Eastern Church have been studied. Accordingly many have had the desire for these doctrinal and spiritual riches not to be stored away in the dark, but to be put into use for the enlightenment of the mind of Christians and for the nurturing of their spirit......

After what we have presented concerning the new Roman Missal, we wish in conclusion to insist on one point in particular and to make it have its effect. When he promulgated the editio princeps of the Roman Missal, our predecessor St. Pius V offered it to the people of Christ as the instrument of liturgical unity and the expression of a pure and reverent worship in the Church. Even though, in virtue of the decree of the Second Vatican Council, we have accepted into the new Roman Missal lawful variations and adaptations, our own expectation in no way differs from that of our predecessor. It is that the faithful will receive the new Missal as a help toward witnessing and strengthening their unity with one another; that through the new Missal one and the same prayer in a great diversity of languages will ascend, more fragrant than any incense, to our heavenly Father through our High Priest, Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit.[/quote]
[i]cf. See apostolic const. Quo primum, July 14, 1570.
SC, art. 38-40.[/i]

[Amator Veritatis]

I have a few moments. A candid observer can see that I have not backtracked. If you would like to illustrate how I have changed my position, please do, but I have not done so. As I said, your comments in whole illustrate various positions. Your opinion regarding the traditional Mass is a restricted one, to say the least. This fact is precisely the reason I stated that you seem to believe that the traditional Mass cannot be offered by all priests. As my points were clear the first and second time, I did not state that you necessarily hold this view but that you seem to hold it. Regardless, your previous comments offered no real evidence or arguments to the point. An assertion is not itself an argument, as much as many wish it were. In any event, as I said previously, I will be engaged for most of the remainder of the day and hope to contribute more ere long.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Mar 9 2006, 04:02 PM']I have a few moments. A candid observer can see that I have not backtracked. If you would like to illustrate how I have changed my position, please do, but I have not done so. As I said, your comments in whole illustrate various positions. Your opinion regarding the traditional Mass is a restricted one, to say the least. This fact is precisely the reason I stated that you seem to believe that the traditional Mass cannot be offered by all priests. As my points were clear the first and second time, I did not state that you necessarily hold this view but that you seem to hold it. Regardless, your previous comments offered no real evidence or arguments to the point. An assertion is not itself an argument, as much as many wish it were. In any event, as I said previously, I will be engaged for most of the remainder of the day and hope to contribute more ere long.
[right][snapback]907392[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I just showed you where your position changed. So, don't even.....My position is very consistent AV. It is very consistent. I have never deviated from that of the Tridentine nor have I deviated from that of the Missa Normativa.

Would you please quote for me where I have said that the Tridentine Mass cannot be celebrated by all priests. If you cannot you are misrepresenting my position. But as it is, I will just flat out say it, YOU ARE MISREPRESENTING MY POSITION.

My previous comments speak to my positioning. An assertation is not an argument true, but I am not making an arugment, AV. What I am doing is supporting my position which has been made very clear in the past. It is not incumbent upon me to restate my position for you. It is incumbnent on you to know my position, if you are going to criticize it.

So, again, don't "assert" that I am ignoring something when I am not. Show me where I have said that the Tridentine cannot be celebrated by all priests. I daresay, you won't be able to do it.

Incidentally, why say "ere?" Why don't you simply say "before." It is easier for most to understand.....

[Donna]

Er, to backtrack about the N.O. Hosts being used at the indult, one may not be aware of this practice. It doesn't seem farfetched that people would go to the Latin Mass for that Mass, that consecration in which "pro-multis" and "mysterium fide" is present....to be followed with receiving one of those Lain Mass consecrated Hosts.

People sure do have a right to the above especially after the centuries this Mass was fostered. No document nor practice can erase that fact.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Donna' date='Mar 13 2006, 01:29 AM']Er, to backtrack about the N.O. Hosts being used at the indult, one may not be aware of this practice. It doesn't seem farfetched that people would go to the Latin Mass for that Mass, that consecration in which "pro-multis" and "mysterium fide" is present....to be followed with receiving one of those Lain Mass consecrated Hosts.

People sure do have a right to the above especially after the centuries this Mass was fostered. No document nor practice can erase that fact.
[right][snapback]909923[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Whaaaa....? That makes no sense. Would you please elaborate?