The SSPX’s “sine quibus non” conditions

From the intrepid Andrea Tornielli:

[...]

The latest version of the doctrinal preamble – discussed by cardinals of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by the Pope – is considered by the Holy See to be definitive and not subject to any significant changes. The Vatican has pointed out that those who claim that the preamble of 13 June essentially repeated what the initial version of the text (prepared by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in September 2011) said, failing to take the Fraternity’s proposals into account, is wrong. A Vatican Insider source confirms that “the latest version acknowledges various proposals and suggestions made by Mgr. Fellay.” [I wonder what "acknowledges" means.]

At the request of the Pope and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, two points were added again to the preamble: the first relates to the mass according to the Novus Ordo, the new rite of mass promulgated after the Second Vatican Council. Lefebvrians are asked to recognise not only the validity of the new mass but its legitimacy as well. [hmmm] This does not mean liturgical abuses cannot be criticised or that the post-Council liturgical reform and its implementation cannot be discussed.

The other point is to do with the Council and its magisterium. The Holy See cannot accept the assertion that the Second Vatican Council documentation contains “errors” and is asking the Fraternity to distinguish between the Council texts and the interpretation of the Council texts, accepting the fact that the magisterium cannot be judged by another group – in this case the Society of St. Pius X – which would end up becoming a sort of “super-magisterium”. [Exactly.]

“The purpose of dialogue is to overcome the difficulties in the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council, but we cannot negotiate on revealed faith; [? Of course not!  But that doesn't mean that every word in every document of the Council is "revealed faith".  Does it?] this is impossible. An ecumenical Council, according to the Catholic faith, is always the Church’s supreme magisterium,” stated the new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Gerhard Müller, in an interview with Catholic news network EWTN News.” “The claim that the authentic teachings of the Second Vatican Council – he added – formally clash with Church tradition, is false.”

As the Vatican awaits Fellay’s response, it has examined closely the circular letter (which is confidential but as usual has ended up on the web) sent by the General Secretariat of the Society of St. Pius X to the various Districts summarising the position which emerged during the Society’s recent General Chapter. The three absolute conditions (“sine qua non”) [sine quibus non... unless the qua refers back to the acceptance rather than the conditions.] the Society of St. Pius X has put forward for an agreement with Rome have been formulated in such a way so that it leaves some room for hope: for example the request for the exclusive use of the 1962 liturgy is reiterated, but nothing is said about the legitimacy of the new mass.

The demand for the right to freely and publicly criticise “the promoters of the errors or the innovations of modernism, liberalism, and Vatican II and its aftermath” could in the end be interpreted in a less harsh way than expected. “It all depends on the response Mgr. Fellay will give to Rome,” the Vatican stressed.

Benedict XVI is the Pope of Christian Unity.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Benedict XVI, Brick by Brick, Our Catholic Identity, SSPX, The Drill and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

102 Responses to The SSPX’s “sine quibus non” conditions

  1. wmeyer says:

    If Trent and Vatican I were dogmatic councils, and Vatican II a pastoral one, which as far as I know made no dogmatic declarations, then what dogma is it, exactly, which must be accepted?

    I make no claims to expertise, but really, this needs some explanation.

  2. Horatius says:

    It’s SSPX which insists, wrongly, that Vatican II is exclusively pastoral: Archbishop DiNoia is eloquent on this in a recent interview, which is online. The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation is, at a guess, dogmatic, for example.

  3. jdscotus says:

    Legitimacy? What an outrage. Is the SSPX being asked to declare legitimate the very liturgy the pope is in the process of reforming? Pope Benedict simply is neither serious about restoring sanity in the Church nor willing to do more than mouth the words “Christian unity”.

    It’s been sad watching what has been the most important conversation in the Church in a very long time descend into farce.

  4. Legisperitus says:

    “An ecumenical Council … is always the Church’s supreme magisterium”?

    Then what about the Pope’s power to nullify a council? Christ did not build His Church upon an ecumenical council.

  5. wmeyer says:

    Horatius, only two of the documents are titled as dogmatic. And in my own studies, I have not found any declaration of infallible teaching.

  6. Giuseppe says:

    What harm is there for SSPX to acknowledge the legitimacy of the NO mass, a mass they will never celebrate?
    What harm is there for SSPX to acknowledge the teachings of Vatican II, when on a practical level there will be no actual change on their day-to-day work and spirituality? Or would there be?

  7. Sixupman says:

    From my standpoint, the New Rite is legitimate, but certainly not efficacious. I know that works have been published setting both Rites side-by-side for comparison, but I will refer only to the situation Post Communion. The three prayers: “Quod ore sumpsimus …..”; “Corpus tum ….” and last, but far from least, the “Placeat tibi ….” must have been excised for some good reason, but what reason. Those prayers are most profound, particularly in the context of the Celebrant and laity just having partaken of the Blessed Eucharist. But in the New Rite almost nothing, perhaps a moment of contemplation and then dismissal and, of course, the onset of chatter. Propiatory Sacrifice, no ?

    Also, I can see no case for the New Rite in Latin, because it would contain the same deficiencies in any language. Whereas, [heresy?], the Old Rite in the vernacular would still have enacted the Propiatory Sacrifice. I am not against the Continental (Europe) practice of the Propers for the day being in the vernacular. Why the absence of the “Leonine Prayers”, where Celebrant and Congregation come together – but, of course, the prayers therein would be objectionable on several grounds to Protestants.

    Regarding the Vatican II position: is it to be alleged that Prof. Amerio’s tome, “Iota Unum”, is a distorted fabrication and the examples of practices ex Vatican II, detailed therein, untruths; similarly, is Msgr. Gherardini yet another misguided simpleton.

    Within days, we have had the Peru issue arise, where it has been admitted that members of the bishops’ conference, there, ganged-up on a single member who sought to protect orthodoxy within his purview. That is what happened to Msgr. Lefebvre; is what has happened the UK; is what happens to mere clergy who seek to balance their lives within the bounds of orthodoxy. Further, such would be the fate of SSPX if they were to be left exposed to the diocesan episcopacy, their curias and priestly associations.

    That is my reading of the situation and I do not even attend an SSPX chapel.

  8. William Tighe says:

    I hold no brief for or against the SSPX, but can this claim really be sustained historically:

    “An ecumenical Council, according to the Catholic faith, is always the Church’s supreme magisterium,” stated the new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Gerhard Müller, in an interview with Catholic news network EWTN News.” “The claim that the authentic teachings of the Second Vatican Council – he added – formally clash with Church tradition, is false.”

    I fully accept that all dogmatic definitions or ecumenical councils are both binding and “irreformable” (in the canonical sense of the word, which does not men that they could not have been better formulated, or that they cannot be “refined” in the future), but are all teachings of a council (however much they may require “obsequium religiosum” from the faithful) requiring interior assent and binding on the conscience in the manner that Abp. Müller seems to be stating?

    As to “jdscotus” let me draw attention to those portion of the “Dictatus Papae” that read:

    (#19): That he himself (i.e., the pope) may be judged by no one. (Quod a nemine ipse iudicari debeat.)
    (#26): That he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered catholic. (Quod catholicus non habeatur, qui non concordat Romanae ecclesiae.)

    There is a somewhat older form of #19 that reads “Prima Sedes a nemine judicatur” and which was incorporated in the 1917 Code of Canon Law as Canon 1556.

    It seems to me that a lot of “traditionalist Catholics” are willing to ignore this when it suits them to do so.

  9. everett says:

    One of the biggest things that would help is an attempt at charitable interpretations by all parties. If the SSPX would attempt more charitable interpretations of what is being offered and of the documents of Vatican II, and if the Church would attempt more charitable interpretations of what SSPX is asking for, that would do much in working to bridge the divide. If the “feeney-ites” can be reconciled, surely there is a means for SSPX to be fully reconciled, and to work for renewal fully within the Church, rather than being marginalized on the periphery. Pray, pray, pray!

  10. Accepting the validity and legitimacy of the NO does not mean having to like it, affirming the wisdom of its existence, avoiding advocacy of its demise, or accepting any of the bizarre things that have become part of it over the years.

    I personally find that denying the validity of the rite as presented in the Missal and the legitimacy of Church authority to develop and promulgate it is problematic theologically and canonically.

    It is also imprudent in advancing the desirability of the traditional Mass. It turns discussions about the relative merits of the NO and the traditional Mass into debates about competent ecclesial authority, the criteria of validity, masonic conspiracy theories, and other off-topic issues. And when that happens, the argument is lost — indeed, it may even aggravate the entrenchment of the NO. It is much better to be able to compare the respective merits of the two forms side by side without such distractions. “Yeah, sure, it’s legitimate and valid and all that, I agree with you — it’s just really ugly, superficial, diluted, and prone to abuse.” It helps keep the discussion focussed.

  11. William Tighe says:

    “Then what about the Pope’s power to nullify a council? Christ did not build His Church upon an ecumenical council.”

    A good question, and mot merely a “theoretical” one. Since at least the Counterreformation the common teaching of the Church has held the Fourth Council of Constantinople of 869 as the eighth ecumenical council, and yet all the decisions of that council were annulled by a Council of Constantinople of 879, to which the papacy assented, both by its representatives present at it, and subsequently by the pope himself.

    And it works the other way, too, it seems: making a council “ecumenical” which was not called as such. The First Council of Constantinople of 381 (the “second ecumenical council,” which probably formulated what we commonly term “the Nicene Creed”) was not summoned as an ecumenical council, but only as a synod of bishops from the regions of Constantinople and Antioch. Rome was unrepresented at it; so was Alexandria (although the Alexandrine archbishop and a few Egyptian bishops turned up at it, they left quickly when they took issue with its recognition of St. Gregory Nazianzus as archbishop of Constantinople). Rome subsequently, in 382, accepted that council’s creed, but rejected its canons — and it continued to refuse to ascribe any “ecumenical status” to that council, sometimes vehemently so, until Pope John II agreed to recognize it as “ecumenical” in 534.

  12. Supertradmum says:

    I am not happy about some of the wording. Thank you, Father for your explanations. I am sure that some of the statements of Vat II need to be studied and even re-worked. That the SSPX could help us understand our own council would be a plus. However, with some of the above commentators, I do not like the word “legitimacy” Something can be valid but not in keeping with strict Tradition. Legitimacy, I would think, could be discussed, as well as what is meant by “revealed faith”.

    I know some SSPXers, sadly, who would not accept this wording.

  13. Horatius says:

    wmeyer, I was speaking only in general, and deferring to the Archbishop, who explained it all quite clearly–perhaps this was on Zenith–and quoting a title most Catholics are ignorant of.

    I have the impression that some assume the Council had to express everything categorically for Catholics to assent to It, but it is clear that assumption, at least, is false, not to mention extremely injurious to souls and the faith. Some positive and constructive views on the Council I had ignorantly attributed to our Holy Father, in fact, are obvious in the language Pope Paul VI used in some letters, specifically the need to understand the Council in continuity with tradition.

  14. wmeyer says:

    Horatius, I am no authority, but have a concern with points declared (non-dogmatically) in V2 docs which may be at odds with points declared dogmatically and/or infallibly in Tridentine or V1 docs. I am not a canonist, but to the limits of my own understanding, V2 was not able to contravene infallible teachings from prior councils, nor to impose requirements which would be at odds with prior established dogma.

  15. Christophe says:

    Is there a list somewhere detailing the points of the “revealed faith” that the SSPX allegedly denies? Why the ambiguity? Why can’t Abp. Muller or another Vatican official tell us specifically how the SSPX is in error?

  16. It seems to me that the question of what is a “pastoral council” is a needless diversion, if only we accept Cardinal Ratzinger’s famous 1988 statement that

    “The truth is that this particular Council [Vatican II] defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council”

    with the evident meaning–since the Council’s documents clearly do contain numerous doctrinal statements–that Vatican II defined no new dogma, merely restating in pastoral contexts the doctrines of Tradition and previous councils.

    This being the case, then what basis is there for disagreement, if everyone concerned accepts all doctrine preceding Vatican II?

  17. wmeyer says:

    Henry, I agree, and that quote also lays to rest the assertion that it is only the SSPX claiming it was a pastoral council.

    Equally a diversion, it seems to me, would be any insistence that the SSPX must accept all V2 dogma. Either there is some, or there is not.

  18. Supertradmum says:

    Henry Edwards, I hardly dare to point out something to you, as you are such an expert in so many things, but have you seen this page linked below? It might help understand some of the SSPX issues with Vat. II http://www.sspx.org/sspx_faqs/q6_vatican_ii.htm

  19. Geoffrey says:

    Roma locuta est, causa finita est. Deo gratias.

  20. Pastor Bonus says:

    Continued…
    Without being convoked by the Pope in the first place and it’s decrees promulgated by him, without that there is no legitimacy.

  21. Horatius says:

    wmeyer, I do not propose myself as an authority on the matter either, even as I am studying V II especially by writing a biography of one of its Fathers, but I offered one title to show how deeply mistaken SSPX is for approaching V II in such a way. That is, SSPX rhetoric is that it is “merely” a pastoral council, as if one’s attitude toward it could be casual or anybody’s guess, and that view is false. As Henry Edwards quotation also implies, V II commands our assent as Catholics, whereas SSPX rhetoric is devised to bring about the opposite. Either one has the competence or no to speak of such a thing: I am going by what our Holy Father has written, and by what Archbishop DiNoia, who explicitly states V II is dogmatic, has said.

  22. MarkA says:

    Horatius – I am certainly no authority, just a faithful trying to make sense of what I read. May I politely ask you what you refer to when you state: “I am going by what our Holy Father has written” regarding V II being dogmatic.

    On 13 July 1988, in Santiago, Chile before that nation’s Bishops, Cardinal Ratzinger stated:
    http://unavoce.org/resources/cardinal-ratzingers-address-to-bishops-of-chile/

    “The truth is that this particular Council [V II] defined no dogma at all, and deliberately
    chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat
    it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the
    importance of all the rest. ”

    Am I missing something?

  23. jhayes says:

    Here are the SSPX “conditions” from the document Tornielli links to. There are three “Essential” (sine qua non) conditions and another three “Desirable” conditions:

    The prerequisite conditions for a possible reconciliation with the official church were more clearly defined.

    Essential conditions to which the SSPX is committed and which it requires of the Roman authorities before considering a canonical recognition

    1. Freedom to preserve, transmit, and teach the sound doctrine of the unchanging Magisterium of the church and the unchangable truth of divine Tradition. Freedom to oppose, correct and challenge, even publicly, those who promote the errors and innovations of modernism, liberalism and the Second Vatican Council – and the things that result from them.

    2. Use, exclusively, the 1962 liturgy. Perform the sacraments as we do now (including holy orders, confirmation and marriage).

    3. Guarantee of at least one bishop. 

    Desirable Conditions

    1. Have our own ecclesiastical tribunals of first instance.

    2. Houses of the SSPX to be exempt from the control of the diocesan bishop.

    3. A Pontifical Commission for Tradition at Rome, reporting to the Pope. A majority of the members and the President to be supporters of Tradition. 

    [my translation from the French original Tornielli links to]

    http://www.riposte-catholique.fr/summorum-pontificum-blog/informations/les-conditions-de-la-fraternite-saint-pie-x.

  24. kgurries says:

    This is the bottom line and ultimately the crux of the issue. This point touches on the Faith itself and what it means to be Catholic.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    The other point is to do with the Council and its magisterium. The Holy See cannot accept the assertion that the Second Vatican Council documentation contains “errors” and is asking the Fraternity to distinguish between the Council texts and the interpretation of the Council texts, accepting the fact that the magisterium cannot be judged by another group – in this case the Society of St. Pius X – which would end up becoming a sort of “super-magisterium”…“The claim that the authentic teachings of the Second Vatican Council – he added – formally clash with Church tradition, is false.”

  25. Jack Orlando says:

    Pastor Bonus above has said it better than I. Müller said “An ecumenical Council, according to the Catholic faith, is always the Church’s supreme magisterium” because the Pope called the council and BOTH bishops AND the Pope sign on. In fact, no council has any authority otherwise. Give Müller a break!

    Once again the same error of Pastoral vs Dogmatic. It doesn’t matter if a teaching is dogmatic or theologically doctrinal or pastorally doctrinal. (doctrine = teaching) A teaching is a teaching is a teaching; and it’s still a teaching of the Magisterium.

    Legitimacy is a syllogism. Legitimate means legal. Whatever is legal is legitimate. The Ordinary Form is legal. Therefore it is legitimate. And by the way, the SSPX has never denied that the Ordinary Form is valid. What does Sixupman above mean by a valid Mass not being efficacious?

    “Why can’t Abp. Muller or another Vatican official tell us specifically how the SSPX is in error?” writes someone above. Well, to start with, the SSPX denies that the Pope is the Universal Pastor of the church by its disobedience to him.

  26. supertradmum: At a quick first read, it seems to me that the document you reference mainly lists apparent errors in interpretations of Vatican II documents, rather than alleged errors in the documents themselves. (Would you agree?) Of course, most of us can probably agree (with Pope Benedict) that many prevalent interpretations of conciliar documents have been flawed. perhaps in many cases as badly as the SSPX appears to think.

  27. wmeyer says:

    Jack Orlando: Would that it were all so simple. In fact, a teaching can be in error, with respect to a prior infallible teaching, or with respect to a dogma. The difficulty in much of Vatican II is the ambiguity in the documents, and the interpretations which have been applied. There have been and appear still to be, some conflicts, which are mostly ignored by the Vatican II proponents, and are troublesome to the rest.

  28. Mr. Orlando, I am not personally aware of any specific instance of disobedience of the SSPX to Pope Benedict, nor any other indication of their denial of him as Universal Pastor and Vicar of Christ on Earth.

    In any event, from the outside looking in–having myself nothing to do with the SSPX–it would appear that the Pope and the SSPX agree on the need for definitive (re)interpretations of the documents of Vatican II, and perhaps on the substance of what many of those interpretations ought to be. But, otherwise, I would be glad to be informed of instances of specific differences of which I am unaware.

  29. Supertradmum says:

    Henry Edwards, Agree totally

  30. Southern Catholic says:

    ” Pope Benedict simply is neither serious about restoring sanity in the Church nor willing to do more than mouth the words “Christian unity”.”

    Were you actually there to see what has gone on? That is a bold statement.

  31. dspecht says:

    Jack Orlando: re legitimacy of the NOM.

    That´s also not so easy and clear or unquestionable.

    If the introduction of the NOM were perfectely legal in law then it would have abrogated (or more precisely: at least de-/obrogated, but then also abrogated) the TLM – as we were consequently also taught for nearly 40 years.

    Now we learn that it would have been never abrogated.

    But that is only possible if the introduction of the NOM was in some way defectiv.
    Well, I know, the same authority that teaches us now that that the TLM would never have been abrogated does not teach us this my conclusion.

    But that´s a real question of legality/legitimacy, of ecclesiastical law.

    And even Alcuin Reid told us that there was a real rupture with the NOM and it´s introduction. So that makes the whole thing more complicated.
    This is also connected with the fact of it´s unorganic “development” etc. –

    So it is (and you and many here will see this debate flurishing the next years) a real question if the NOM is a legitmate rite of the Catholic Church.
    I can not see it as such, given the circumstances. At least it is doubtfull, a matter of question (and further discussion).

  32. dspecht says:

    Henry Edwards.

    There is something realy new (what the Pope and esp. Müller point to as new but binding and the sspx rejects) – and that is the crucial point: rel. liberty.

    Müller and also the Pope seem to see it as a new doctrine (what is obvious) or way of appliance (what is not at all obvious) – but not in rupture with the past.
    Therefore the hermeneutic of “REFORM in continuity”.
    Reform here means something realy new – but (allegedly) in continuity with tradition.

    And the sspx denies that it is in fact in continuity with tradition.
    Last year in Germany there was a discussion between the conservative pro-Vat. II Prof. M. Rohnheimer and Fr. Gaudron sspx in the theological peridical “Die Neue Ordnung”, that made this very clear.

  33. Horatius says:

    MarkA, then we are in the same boat, and thanks for your kind reply.

    There are two things: there can be nothing truly pastoral that is not also an expression of Christ, of His Truth, which is safeguarded and expressed by His Church. Second, what the Holy Father implies, therefore, with his phrase “merely pastoral,” as Henry on this thread seems also to have seen, is equally dogmatic, as dogmata safeguard and express the aforementioned truth. Now albeit those dogmata were nothing “new,” their expression may well have been.

    As for superdogma, as I believe Father Cassian (Norcia) once explained to me, it is the reductive approach to the Church today which would attempt, wrongly, to pretend V II is one-stop shopping (my term, to be sure), whereas it is but one further source of riches in our Church, from Jesus Christ to our ears. Such a faulty assumption leads to the discontinuity in reading and interpretation of V II which “His Hermeneuticalness” has long and rightly opposed. (So did Blessed Pope John Paul II and Pope Paul VI, I am coming to see.)

    Finally, as I read this gorgeous afternoon The Spirit of the Liturgy, I see a great and greatly learned mind–our Pope’s–working through all manners of confusions, controversies, and conflicts, through historical and prehistorical periods, through ages of the Church, through Scripture, through scholars, Fathers, doctors, and Saints of the Church, TO ADDRESS US PASTORALLY, with great love and serenity, since the Liturgy has been subjected to the gamut of behavior, regrettable to despicable. He is kind of a one-man council.

  34. jdscotus says:

    Southern Catholic,

    Of course I was not there, but I did not have to be: the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the proof of the pope’s intentions is made loud and clear by all this silly document diplomacy from the Vatican. Any negotiation suffocates from such a disinterested and hands-off approach. Parties that care about the outcome of the negotiation meet and hash things out.

  35. Dennis Martin says:

    Sixcupman introduced a distinction between legitimate and efficacious for the OF.

    No one can assess efficacy because the OF qua OF has never really been celebrated widely enough to assess its fundamental efficacy. I get so tired of judgments based on the ars celebrandi of the vernacular form.

    Sure, that’s the form that is widespread. And I have NO problem assessing (negatively) the efficacy of the average, desultory vernacular OF.

    But that is not what was promulgated in 1969. It’s what was done with what was promulgated. It’s efficacy has been, for the most part, negative. But the few places where it has been tried with a proper ars celebrandi, either in Latin or even in the vernacular (St. Agnes in St. Paul, St. John Cantius in Chicago–and there are others) I think it has been positively efficacious.

    So, blast away at the failure of the vernacularization and at the destruction of a sacral ars celebrandi all you want. The SSPX is not being asked to declare the vernacular OF as commonly celebrated to be efficacious. It is being asked to assert that it’s not only valid but legitimate.

    Why the grudging acceptance of legitimacy and then the immediate move to “but it’s not efficacious”? A lot of us would agree if the “it” referred to the actual situation. But to say that the OF/NO qua OF/NO is not efficacious is something that cannot be said because no one, on any side of the Liturgy Wars, has sufficient data for that assessment. The OF has never really been given a fair shot. That it has not been is a terrible, terrible tragedy. But it’s also a fact. Let’s be honest about that.

    I personally prefer the Offertory Prayers of the EF. I personally am ready to criticize this or that aspect of the OF qua OF. But I must object to dismissing it based on the abuse of it. Abusus non tollit usum.

  36. wmeyer says:

    Dennis Martin: A video is online now of what may be the OF as it was meant to be, as celebrated at St. Joseph’s in Macon, GA. It was the Solemnity of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist. Were more pastors so thoughtful in their celebration of the OF, we would have little, I think, of which to complain.

  37. AnAmericanMother says:

    Three cheers for St. Joseph’s! A good friend is a parishioner there – have lots of friends in Macon.

  38. wmeyer says:

    AAM, Fr. McDonald is an online friend, and has answered for me several questions which posed problems for me in my parish. And his vicar, Fr. Dawid, I saw at the cathedral in Savannah, before his ordination. Excellent! A bit far for every week, but I am drawn to visit.

  39. Southern Catholic says:

    jdscotus ,

    “Parties that care about the outcome of the negotiation meet and hash things out.” By the logic you apply the SSPX is at fault just as much as the Vatican for lack of work issues out, it isn’t like all of the SSPX are trying to come back in line with Rome. For example, see Bishop Williamson.

  40. robtbrown says:

    Mr Orlando,

    What is an example of pastorally doctrinal?

  41. jdscotus says:

    Southern Catholic,

    Oh, come on. Bishop Fellay went to Rome immediately after being “summoned” by Cardinal Levada. The SSPX has always been willing to meet. As far as Bishop Willison is concerned, he is now marginalized within the SSPX, and I would even describe him as having excommunicated himself from the SSPX with his latest comments about Bishop Fellay. Bishop Williamson is an irrelevancy in terms of the SSPX coming to terms with Rome. I’m that respect he has a lot in common with Pope Benedict.

  42. jdscotus says:

    Sorry, “In that respect…”

  43. Cosmos says:

    One issue here seems to stem from what wmeyer writes above: “A video is online now of what may be the OF as it was meant to be, as celebrated at St. Joseph’s in Macon, GA. ”

    From what I have read, the people who crafted and drafted the Novus Ordo did not “intend” that the new mass maintain as much connection with Tradition as possible. Rather, it was a deliberate rupture from the Tradition. The idea that the NO would be great if it were celebrated as intended seems, in that sense, false. It might be truer to say that there is a way to celebrate teh NO, intended or not, that is consistent with Tradition.

    Similalry, if a council is protected from error, does that mean anything more the words will always be open to an interpretation that is consistent with Tradition? Or do we actually have to assert that what was written was intended to be interpreted in line with Tradition, but was distorted by false interpreters. Could an influential council father purposfully inject ambiguous language that points away from the Tradition, or is that two prevented by the Holy Spirit?

  44. Indulgentiam says:

    i am not a part of an SSPX community. That said my respect for Bishop Fellay has increased steadily throughout these proceedings. He is obviously a man of integrity. i mean he could just pull a Pelosi, Biden, Nuns on the bus, egocentric clown mass loving priest thing. You know he could just sign basically be a two faced liar like all those mentioned. And get away with it like all those mentioned. I am not privy to all the documents, politics and outright shenanigans behind the scenes so i will restrict my comments to what i see and know. In a church that is overrun with Pelosi’s, Biden’s, nuns on buses and Fr. Jenkins’ a man with the courage of his convictions is a refreshing site. He has my prayers and my respect. God bless him and Our Lady keep him safely under Her Mantle.

  45. Bender says:

    Sigh.

    So many falsehoods, errors, and grievous misunderstandings.

    There is ONE Mass. ONE HOLY MASS. ONE. One Holy Mass, albeit celebrated in various forms and rites.

    The Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite of the One Holy Mass is not a “New Mass,” it is not a rupture, it is not a “No Mass.” Rather, it is the One Holy Mass and, hence, as valid and legitimate and efficacious as that celebrated in any other form or rite.

    At the Holy Sacrifice of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite of the One Holy Mass, our Lord Jesus Christ is made present, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. At the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite of the One Holy Mass, the entire Holy Trinity takes part, as well as the entirety of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, Triumphant, Suffering, and Militant.

    To demean the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite of the One Holy Mass is to demean the Lord Himself.

  46. Captain Peabody says:

    Legitimate need not be taken to mean any more than “lawful”; that is, to mean that the Pope had, at the least, the legal authority to promulgate the new rite, and that its celebration has been and continues to be legal under canon law. I cannot see how this would pose a problem for the SSPX.

    However, to speak of the “errors of Vatican II” in the same sentence as the errors of modernism and liberalism, and without qualification, is more difficult to reconcile. However, it should be kept in mind that this is a letter “for the troops,” so to speak; hopefully, the communications with the Vatican will be more diplomatic.

  47. Jack Orlando says:

    wmeyer: the issue isn’t ambiguity. The issue is the SSPX’s disobedience to the Universal Pastor. If a teaching is ambiguous, then it isn’t the SSPX’s job to do the clarifying. It’s the job of the Magisterium. What one can do is ask the Magisterium for a clarification, but one first must be in the Church. The SSPX isn’t in the Church.

    Henry Edwards: When the SSPX refuses to sign the Preamble presented to it by the Pope, it denies by its action that the Universal Pastor is its pastor, and so denies by this action a dogma. The old saws are true: Talk’s cheap, and actions not only speak louder than words but are our real words.

    dspecht is wrong about legitimacy. Just because one Form wasn’t abrogated doesn’t mean the other is illegitimate. It’s possible to have two Forms. Otherwise Summorum Pontificum would be illegitimate.

    robtbrown: the etymology of “doctrine” is the Latin word for “teach”. Doctrine = Teaching. Some teachings are (1) dogma (which is usually taught when someone denies #2), other teachings (2) are theology without being defined as dogma, and still other teachings (3) are how we are to live our lives: pastoral. All three are doctrine (teaching) by definition. All three oblige our obedience.

  48. wmeyer says:

    Jack Orlando, I must disagree. And until the Magisterium (not local bishops) publish an interpretation, and so long as Mass is barely similar in adjacent parishes, then yes, it is about ambiguity, since they all think they are doing it properly.

  49. Mr. Orlando: “Henry Edwards: When the SSPX refuses to sign the Preamble presented to it by the Pope, it denies by its action that the Universal Pastor is its pastor, and so denies by this action a dogma. ”

    The fact, that the SSPX and the CDF have not yet settled upon a statement of their mutual agreement, does not seem an example pertinent to the suggestion of disobedience or disrespect. Perhaps someone else can provide an example that is pertinent.

  50. chcrix says:

    “The Ordinary Form …of the One Holy Mass is not a “New Mass,” it is not a rupture, …”

    But, as practiced, it’ll sure do until the real thing comes along.

    To borrow from the thought of Manuel Paleologus that the Pope mentioned in the Regensburg address, the NO is not ‘boese’, but appearances are that it has been ‘schlecht’.

    I think it is wise to remember that the Pope is like a king. But even a king can’t simply do whatever he wants whenever he wants. The church may be divine, but the people who make it up are human. I see Pope Benedict navigating very rough waters. I believe and hope that Bishop Fellay is trying as hard to do the same thing. Both of these men are facing difficulties that are both internal and external.

  51. Dennis Martin says:

    Cosmos,

    I did not address nor speculate about how much rupture and how much continuity was intended by those who created the Novus Ordo Missae. You have some evidence from Bugnini’s writings, true.

    But the fact is that the Novus Orod Missae can and is celebrated as an exercise in continuity rather than rupture at the places I mentioned and many others. That rupture became the most common approach resulted largely from the nearly simultaneous decision by most bishops around the world to vernacularize and then by the rupturing form the translating took, plus the wholesale, against the intention of the Council, adoption of celebration versus populum.

    But none of that belongs to the OF qua OF. What has been done at St. John Cantius and St. Agnes and elsewhere is to take the words, to say the black of the OF and do the Red of the OF, and then apply the customs (Sanctus procession, frequent High Mass at least as a Sung Hugh Mass, retention of communion on the tongue, celebrating ad orientem, a solemn ars celebrandi in countless smaller ways) to those texts.

    The texts have some elements of rupture, e.g., in the offertory prayers. But most Catholics in the pews are far more affected by that which surrounds the texts and reaches most of the five senses, by the whole package, by the larger picture of the manner of celebrating.

    None of of the things listed in the parenthesis above were mandated to be abandoned by the OF qua OF. That most were abandoned is a product of rupture-minded interpreters of the OF qua OF. The OF qua OF not only does not mandate celebration versus populum, its rubrics imply celebration ad orientem. If a major cause of the rupture was versus populum, you cannot lay that at the feet of the NO itself.

    That many leaders of the time had a hermeneutic of rupture and created great rupture is very true and a great tragedy. But the hermeneutic is a hermeneutic, a manner of interpreting the revised liturgy, not the liturgy itself. And others had a hermeneutic of continuity: Monsignor Schuler, Mohnsignor Hellriegel and others. That alone shows that rupture is not intrinsic to the OF. It can be poured into the OF but so too can continuity.

    Is the EF superior to the OF, overall. I’m inclined to say yes. But that does not require me also to accuse the OF of being in itself and necessarily a rupture with the tradition. It is in fact fully within the tradition. Could it have been more so? Yes. I would have preferred more continuity but it did not constitute a rupture in itself. It was used as a tool of great rupture but only via the way it was celebrated and vernacularized.

    Those who sincerely love and prefer the EF need to fight fair. They discredit themselves when they stubbornly exaggerate and distort by failing to distinguish between the Novus Ordo Missae as it was promulgated, now in its third edition, on the one hand, and the way it has been (ab)used by those who truly have ruptured the tradition, on the other.

    Our Holy Father in Summorum Pontificum expressed hope that the EF would aid the recovery of continuity with tradition in the OF. I take that to mean not that the OF was in itself a rupture but that what has been made of it by all too many has created huge rupture and the EF can help overcome that.

    But at the same time, the OF qua OF can help the cause of continuity in the continued life of the EF. He really meant that.. It’s time we take him utterly seriously and stop the sniping. In the battles that lie ahead we need to work together. And that, as someone upthread rightly said, means charitably interpreting the other guy, the other Form, the one I don’t myself like as well or not much at all. Fine. Maintain a preference for the EF, no, a deep love of and devotion to the EF. But don’t falsely and unfairly denigrate or distort that which you do not like as well or don’t like much at all.

    And I dare you to attend the OF in Latin at St. Agnes or St. John Cantius with an open heart and mind for three months.

    Oh, but that’s the exception, you might respond. Yes indeed it is, though increasingly less the exception and more the rule. That it has been exceptional for 40 years,, however, is irrelevant to the point at issue here. If the NO was in itself a rupture with the tradition, what was done with it at St. Agnes straight through for decades should not have been possible. But it happened. Eppure si muove.

  52. Geoffrey says:

    “I am not personally aware of any specific instance of disobedience of the SSPX to Pope Benedict, nor any other indication of their denial of him as Universal Pastor and Vicar of Christ on Earth.”

    The very fact that there are the four SSPX bishops reveals one specific instance of disobedience; their very consecration was an act of outright disobedience to Blessed John Paul II, who was at the time, the Vicar of Christ on Earth. They therefore incurred automatic excommunication, which was graciously lifted by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

    Quite honestly, the fact that there are any negotiations at all between the SSPX and the Holy See shows more than a hint of disobedience. I recall a line from “The Agony and the Ecstasy” spoken by Rex Harrison who played Pope Julius II: “Would you bargain with your pontiff?!”

  53. jdscotus says:

    Geoffrey,

    Your reasoning is absurd. I’ll leave it to you to rebuke St. Paul for rebuking St. Peter. The “excommunication” to which you refer was a mere legal technicality, much as St. Peter could have levied against St. Paul. BTW, so called “Blessed John Paul II” was not “blessed” at the time he let the 1983 Code “excommunicate” the four bishops. God willing (and how could He not?) the SSPX will never surrender to the dictator-Pontiff recommended by fair-weather [c]atholics!

  54. Garth says:

    Bender nailed it. The Mass is the Mass. It can be celebrated well or celebrated poorly, but to say it is ‘inefficacious’ is both false and scandalous.

    It certainly has been efficacious in my own life, thank you very much. Will anyone seek to correct me?

  55. Aegidius says:

    Jdscotus,
    Charity, my friend, charity, modesty and decency.
    “So called blessed”, “dictator-pontiff” … I begin to think you chose the wrong forum.

  56. Horatius says:

    Bender is one hundred percent correct.

  57. dspecht says:

    Bender et al.:

    Not only the sspx points to the NOM as a rupture. Recently f.e. Bf. Schneider and Card. Ranjith critizised some ruptural aspect of the NOM itselfe (not of abuses!!)

    And so did Alcuin Reid, see http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2011/10/interview-with-dr-alcuin-reid-in.html
    He expressely speaks of a rupture via the introduction of the NOM, a “ritual and theological rupture”!

  58. Dennis Martin says:

    dspecht,

    In the link you give Alcuin Reid does NOT say that the Novus Ordo Missae itself constitutes a rupture with tradition. He says that there’s evidence those responsible for it intended rupture. The two are not the same.

    “Rupturable aspects,” LOL No one disputes that. In my comments here I acknowledged that freely, above all in the offertory. Reid’s point, I think, is that it was a departure from tradition to try to construct a liturgy by a committee. I agree.

    But none of that means that the product of their efforts, despite their intentions, constituted in fact and as a whole, a rupture with the tradition. I could wish that Paul VI had not approved the Novus Ordo Missae. But he did. And it was and is capable of celebration in continuity with the tradition, despite its flaws. That’s what Msgr. Schuler did.

    We are required as Christians and Catholics to put the best construction we can on what people say and do. What you and others are doing with the Novus Ordo is not unlike what the SSPX is doing with the documents of Vatican II. Are they without blemish? No. Are there ambiguities in them? Yes. Could the have been written better? Yes. Did some of those at the council seek rupture with the tradition? Yes. Did others at the Council seek continuity? Yes. Can the documents be read in continuity with tradition? Yes. Can they be read as rupture? Yes, they have been for 50 years. Does the fact that they CAN BE READ that way mean that they can ONLY be read that way? No.

    Does the fact that the Novus Ordo Missae was read as rupture by most bishops and clergy at the outset (which was made easy by the foolish choice to vernacularize it out of the box) mean that this was the only way the Novus Ordo Missae could have been implemented.

    No No and No again.

    I agree with Fr. Robinson? of the Toronto Oratory that elements of (false) Enlightenment philosophy and anthropology animated members of the Consilium. I agree that the Liturgical Movement was hijacked by a false hermeneutic of the Church, of worship, of human persons, of art.

    Yet I would also say that despite all these false influences and intentions, what resulted as the Novus Ordo Missae was, though flawed, still in continuity with tradition. It could have been done far better, I wish it had not been approved but I will not denounce it as, in itself, a rupture. What was done with it was a thousand times rupturing.

    Is the Novus Ordo Missae unefficacious? We don’t know the answer because the Novus Ordo Missae was implement in bad faith by too many, because it, like the Council documents, was “read” (celebrated) with a hermeneutic of rupture.

    But that was a hermeneutic act, as it had to be. Implementing and celebrating it by necessity involved interpretation, hermeneutic. It was implemented with a fales hermeneutic by people who really did harm to the Church. But that does not mean that that’s the only way it could have been implemented. And some few brave souls swam against that tide. People who insist that the only way to implement it was a rupturing way denigrate the memory of people like Msgr Schuler.

    Was he and a handful of others a lone voice crying in the wilderness? Yes. Should it have happened differently? Yes. But the very fact that it should have happened differently shows that it could have happened differently and that the

    problem
    lies (as it always does)
    with
    the
    hermeneutic.

    Until the SSPX recognizes this and stops lumping (ab)use with use, we will limp into the great battle that awaits us in disunity, sniping at each other, tearing each other down.

  59. dspecht says:

    Jack Orlando:
    “Just because one Form wasn’t abrogated doesn’t mean the other is illegitimate. It’s possible to have two Forms”

    This your sentence is right – but it was not my argument (it would be a non-sequitur, I admit).

    Of course there could be two forms.
    But it was not the intention of the law-giver, Paul VI, to create a new rite or a new form besides the old rite or form.
    It was his clear intention to reform the old Missal and therefore replace the old form by the new, reforemd form. And logically he prohibited the old one. And later on you needed a special indult for it, so again this means it was prohibited (we seem to forget this facts very fast!).

    The old form was ob-/derogated by c. 22 (CIC 1917) – and also abrogated because Paul VI directly declared so and intended to do so — or, and that´s my argument, well, he tried to do so, he intended to do so – but if he effectively has done so, that ´s questionable. Because it is questionable if he had effectively, legitimately introduced this new form obrogating the old.

    If he legaly introduced the new form, then it is legaly absolutely clear that the old one was supressed by this very act, considering the clear intention and expression of Paul VI .
    The only way that the old one was not supressed is that Paul VI failed in introducing the new way in a legitimate way.
    – That´s the argument.

    And, as an side argument, I said that you must consider the unorganic, ruptural aspect of the NOM. The Pope seems to have exceeded his competence in introducing such an inorganic-”developed” thing like the NOM.

    See the same Alcuin-Reid interview linked above. He says:
    “Neither councils nor popes are competent to construct the liturgy … But even so, the 1969 Ordo as a whole is a radical ritual and theological innovation, not an organic development in line with Sacrosanctum Concilium 23.”

    So we have an additional argument (or say the deeper reason why) that the introduction of the NOM was not legaly binding. There was no competence to introduce a fabricated liturgy. A fabricated liturgy is illegitimate, even a Pope has no competence to legitimate it

  60. dspecht says:

    Dennis Martin:

    Reid does not only say there was the intention of rupture (“there is evidence that those responsible for the reform intended rupture – ritual and also theological.”)

    but also that there is in fact rupture – “unprecedent in liturgical history”
    (
    “This is an historical reality, not an ecclesio-political position. Liturgists from ‘both sides’ agree that the reform was radical and a rupture. As a Catholic I regard this as a significant problem, because it is unprecedented in liturgical history and it is not what the Council, out of respect for liturgical tradition, called for.”)

    And then the further context resp. remarks of Reid make it abundantely clear that he sees this liturgy as a rupture.

  61. Dennis Martin says:

    Correction: This is probably the line dspecht had in mind from the Reid piece:

    “But even so, the 1969 Ordo as a whole is a radical ritual and theological innovation, not an organic development in line with Sacrosanctum Concilium 23.”

    The rest of what he says mixes implementation and the thing in itself. I respectfully disagree with the quoted line. I have a lot of sympathy for it critique of the text of the NOM but I think these words here go too far, perhaps influenced by what actually happened in the implementation. I would say the same to Dom Reid as I said upthread: the fact that the NOM could be and was implemented by some few in such continuity with the tradition indicates that the rupture lay in the implementation not in thing itself. Should the thing itself have been done better. Yes.

    But yes, he does say that the Novus Ordo Missae as a whole is a radical innovation. He does not use the word rupture at that point, but it would be proper to think that he means rupture when he says radical innovation. His words, like all other words, require interpretation.

    Why do I insist on the fact that the NOM could be read in continuity? Because the Mass does not exist merely as text on paper. It does not and cannot float free of implementation. Whatever one says about the text itself always is said and cannot not be said in light of how it is implemented.

    The perception of the Mass by the faithful has as much or more to do with the ars celebrandi as it does with the text itself. What most people experienced as the NOM was a rupture because it was celebrated in the vernacular with a false ars celebrandi by most.

    However, when it was celebrated with traditional customs and a hermeneutic of continuity it was in fact indistinguishable the average person in the pews from the EF. I know this for a fact. One of the first times that the NOM was celebrated in Latin ad orientem at St. John Cantius, ca. 1996?? I recall a friend in her 70s who remembered the pre-conciliar Mass remarking to me after that Mass “I didn’t know that we were going to have the Tridentine Rite today” (meaning, at 11:00 when the Latin Novus Ordo was normally celebrated). She thought that somehow the TLM had been moved up into the NO slot. She could not tell the difference.

    Granted, she was not and could not be following the Latin text of the NOM.

    But that’s my point. In assessing efficacy and continuity and rupture, one cannot do it from the texts alone because most people encounter far more of the ars celebrandi surrounding the text than the text itself when the assist at Mass. That’s as true for the TLM as for the NO.

    So, whether the text in se is a radical innovation and rupture or a moderate innovation in continuity is one, important question. Dom Reid says it was a radical innovation. I’d say it contained significant and infelicitous innovations and I wish it had not been approved. Had Bugnini had his way, it would have clearly been a radical radical radical radical innovation and rupture, but Paul VI, as Reid points out, stymied that. In Dom Reid’s view, Paul VI did not stymie enough and what was promulgated was a radical innnovation I’d say it was not, based on the fact that it could be and was “read” in continuity by the Msgr Schulers of the Church. I don’t think what Bugnini presented to Paul VI could have been read in continuity and I’d reserve “rupture in se” for that. But the implementation of what Paul VI did approve was rupturing to the ‘nth degree.

  62. dspecht says:

    Dennis Martin:

    “Does the fact that they CAN BE READ that way mean that they can ONLY be read that way? No.

    But then, does this mean the texts are ok.?? – No, if the texts (of the Council resp. of the new liturgy) qualify as “male sonans” resp. “captiosus/a”, as your description and also A. Reid analyisis shows (see the ruptural intention, that he and you admit!!), then they are evil.

    If you admit that there was a bad, ruptural intention – as you resp. Alcuin did – and the texts are therefore purposely ambiguous – then they are “captiosa” and therefore evil. That´the problem.

  63. dspecht says:

    Dennis Martin 26 July 2012 at 8:25 am

    Yes, this was exactly one of the lines I thought about.

    But it was also the other line(s) I posted above:
    “…Liturgists from ‘both sides’ agree that the reform was radical and a rupture…”

    And the nearest as also the wider context (and lines as quoted by you) make it clear that A. Reid not just quotes the view of “liturgists from `both sides´” but quotes them affirmatively. The sentences immediately before and after this sentence already show that it is also the point of view of Reid himselfe.

  64. Christophe says:

    Besides Jack Orlando’s tautology that anyone who disobeys the pope is denying dogma, can someone point me to an official list of doctinal teachings that the SSPX allegedly denies? In the bad old days when clarity was important, the Holy Office would pronounce anathemas against certain viewpoints. The purpose was twofold — to condemn the issuer of such viewpoints and call him back to repentenance, and to warn the faithful, whose souls were at stake, against following such viewpoints. “If anyone says X, let him be anathema.”

    Remember, it was Pope Benedict himself who declared that the SSPX’s lack of canonical status “is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons.” That is, it’s a matter of denying doctrine, not a matter of bishops being consecrated without papal approval. What are those doctrinal reasons? Wouldn’t it be prudent, for the salvation of souls, to clearly define the doctrinal reasons, and to state, “If anyone (such as the SSPX) says X, let him be anathema”?

  65. Horatius says:

    The nature and effect of the Novus Ordo Missae: can anybody seriously believe that our entire understanding of this should depend on one scholar and one scholar alone, no matter how distinguished? I have read Alcuin Reid’s long book, and I like it. But I would not be able to see an organic or an inorganic development with or without the book. What are the signs of organic development in twenty-five words or less? Worse, the metaphor is inadequate to the purpose. Apply the adjective to truth, goodness, and beauty, and you may see what I mean. Excuse me, but liturgy is what God wants and dictates, and His Church is the place to find it on earth. When in the history of the Church has the Romantic concept of organicity entered into the minds of the Fathers, Saints, or Councils?

    Then of course the Pope has already settled the matter: one rite, two forms.

    Alcuin Reid’s work is not a plank to hit the Catholic Church over the head with, at all events. SSPX distortions notwithstanding, that is obvious both from the book and from other things he has written.

  66. dspecht says:

    Horatius:

    Come on, it is not only one book or one scholar.

    I mentioned others like Ranjith, Schneider.
    And of course there is the Archbishop Lefebvre and Bf. de Castro Mayer.

    And Gherardini and others. – But of course it is not only the scholarship that counts. That is only an argument of authority. But it is the value of the arguments themselfe that counts. And there we have historical proof enough that the NOM was designed in an theological ruptural way. We have the express confirmation of Bugnini & friends that it was construed in favour of ecumenism.
    The new “offertory” is only one example of many that show the ecumenic-theological purpose of the reforms.

    And we can also see some kind of Pelagianism (as also not only Fr. Hunwicke denoted!) in the reform. And many other more than problematic and ruptural (theologically ruptural!) aspects.
    We can only hope the sspx will insist of discussing those further (in the following years).

  67. Horatius says:

    It is on this thread. Would you care to address that, instead of naming a bunch of names as you do, which is no argument at all. Misrepresenting Alcuin Reid as if her were SSPX is silly, at best.

    Incommensurable approaches add up to nothing.

    One rite, two forms. You may not like it, but there it is. SSPX is not the guardian of the faith, the Catholic Church is.

  68. wmeyer says:

    One rite, two forms. You may not like it, but there it is. SSPX is not the guardian of the faith, the Catholic Church is.

    True enough. And in Quo primum you will find this:

    Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women – even of military orders – and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church. This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever.

    and this:

    …We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used.

    It is difficult to imagine how this could be changed, without specific reference being made, at least, to these dictates.

  69. Dennis Martin says:

    dspecht,

    The text does not exist in a vacuum. Your arguments assume that it does.

    No one can assess this issue by treating the text apart from the way it was implemented.

    If the OF had only ever been celebrated with a rupture hermeneutic your position might stand.

    But it is and has been and is increasingly being celebrated in continuity. That’s a fact.

    We will never know what the text itself might have produced in the way of ars celebrandi if

    1. bishops had not opted, simultaneously, for total vernacularization. That was Rupture with a capital R.

    2. versus populum, contrary to the text itself, had not become universal

    and a host of other things.

    Is the text flawed along the lines Reid states.

    Yes.

    But the text float above its implementation anywhere. Never has. Never will.

    All I’m asking of you is to acknowledge that and to stop reading the abuse into the use. The use has its flaws. The ab-uses, by definition, are not among the flaws of the use.

  70. Horatius says:

    Why is it difficult to imagine?

    It is not difficult for me to imagine it.

    “True enough” does not quite begin to cover the truth of what the Pope has defined: one rite, two forms. That’s the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, no?

    The Belief of Catholics, by Ronald Knox: “To believe in Catholic doctrines without believing in the existence of that infallible authority which guarantees them all is to hold, not the Catholic faith, but a series of speculative opinions. It is the first infidelity that counts.”

  71. Sixupman says:

    “Universal Pastor”: I know what that meant prior to Vatican II [and hold to that view], however, Vatican II, if I am correct, elevated the bishops, on the basis of collegiality, to a position where the papacy can only act in conjunction with them. They in turn are behold to their ‘Conferences’.

    How many bishops and conferences to-day exhibit both fidelity and fealty to the Papacy. Not many, in my view, indeed they are too busy creating ‘National Churches’.

    Bender: “To demean the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite of the One Holy Mass is to demean the Lord Himself.”

    You need to look to the diocesan clergy in such respect, not SSPX and congregations who partake of The Blessed Sacrament in the manner in which they do.

    The Mass is a re-enactment of The Propiatory Sacrifice, in real terms, and not a mere “Commemoration”. Does the OF fully reflect that understanding of The Mass?

  72. Horatius says:

    Yes, the OF does. That is not only obvious in the text, it is obvious in the experience, both aspects well supported in easy-to-find places.

    Besides, the Pope has already defined the matter: by questioning it, despite the clear evidence for an answer in the affirmative, some sectarian attempt at defying the Pope rears its ugly head.

  73. dspecht says:

    Horatius

    But the Pope (Paul VI) had defined the matter the other way around. He said that the new form is to replace the old. And he prohibited the old. Do you deny this fact?
    So, perhaps the next Pope re-difines it again….

  74. Indulgentiam says:

    Horatius–”Yes, the OF does. That is not only obvious in the text, it is obvious in the experience, both aspects well supported in easy-to-find places.”

    it is clear, to me, that you are much better informed about this than i am so i am approaching you with caution :) please, keep that in mind when answering me and if you have time please point me in the direction of references :D

    On paper the OF may very well work but in practice, as currently practiced everywhere i’ve seen and by all accounts in the majority of parishes, it is a disaster. At what point do you acknowledge that what the council may or may not have intended has resulted in a train wreck?
    and in the midst of a train wreck one does not leave the bleeding bodies strewn about whilst calmly walking back up the line to investigate who threw the switch and what they where thinking when they threw the switch. Ideally the one in charge will reroute to a safe line, in our case TLM is the only other line, and then set about cleaning up the mess before investigating who threw the switch. While theologians throw VII documents back and forth souls are being lost.

  75. dspecht says:

    wmeyer:

    Paul VI did not want to introduce a new Rite and supress the Rite of Pius V.
    He wanted to reform the Rite of PiusV

    So he reformed it and – in his view – this reformed Rite was the continuation of the old one, so Quo primum is still in force as the Rite of Pius V in his updated version of Paul VI is.

    And expressely he declared that the new form should replace the old form and he prohibited to use the old form (with the exception for old and ill priests). Oh dear, that are well known facts – should we really discuss this facts?!

  76. wmeyer says:

    And expressely he declared that the new form should replace the old form and he prohibited to use the old form (with the exception for old and ill priests). Oh dear, that are well known facts – should we really discuss this facts?! Reference?

    Your facts seem to be in disagreement with the facts Pope Benedict presented in Summorum Pontificum: As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.

  77. robtbrown says:

    Jack Orlando says:

    “Why can’t Abp. Muller or another Vatican official tell us specifically how the SSPX is in error?” writes someone above. Well, to start with, the SSPX denies that the Pope is the Universal Pastor of the church by its disobedience to him.

    So you’re saying that whenever a son disobeys his father, he is denying his fatherhood? In fact, it might mean that, but not necessarily.

    When the SSPX refuses to sign the Preamble presented to it by the Pope, it denies by its action that the Universal Pastor is its pastor, and so denies by this action a dogma.

    Also wrong. There is nothing in Papal Primacy that indicates that someone must sign a document (even one like the Preamble) because the pope wants it.

    robtbrown: the etymology of “doctrine” is the Latin word for “teach”. Doctrine = Teaching. Some teachings are (1) dogma (which is usually taught when someone denies #2), other teachings (2) are theology without being defined as dogma, and still other teachings (3) are how we are to live our lives: pastoral. All three are doctrine (teaching) by definition. All three oblige our obedience.

    Not really. Although you’re mostly right about the nature of dogma, which is de fide and obligates sub poena peccati, your tires then went flat. Pastoral theology, however, refers to the application of doctrine, not doctrine itself. Your definition is one of moral doctrine.

    BTW, I recommend the very first question of the Summa. Also Garrigou-LaGrange’s commentary on it in The One God.

  78. Horatius says:

    dspecht, wmeyer has already answered your kind question to me.

    Indulgentiam, if you would like a short list of devout and reverent parishes in NY, CT, and MA, I can post it. I can add a few monasteries, too. They celebrate one or the other form or both. For the clearest printed source of which I am aware, am finishing our Pope’s Spirit of the Liturgy, which I strongly recommend, albeit challenging in its argument. For those claiming to want “clarity,” however, there is loads of that. My favorite such moment is when he writes, of a liturgist’s thesis, “This is nonsense.” Veritas in caritate: I am sure the poor man deserved much worse.

    When I was in Rome, I watched in Saint Peter’s Square the Mass given, in Latin, OF, for the feast of Saints Peter and Paul. It was not, in your word, a disaster, but exactly what parishes were supposed to be doing lo these past decades. I imagine some recording exists of this, or excerpts online. Always is the Roman rite in Latin, everything else being a translation. The Mass was gorgeous, even as I watched in heat that would reach 100 degrees.

    I cannot deny abuses or bad taste–I have five parishes churches to choose from if I want at least some of that–but these form no part of the Mass in either form.

    The causes are daily mentioned here, it seems, and in my own research I can add to the complexity of the matter, with activists, before the Council was ever completed, clearly to blame. What motivated them is the question.

    But Father Z is, in my opinion, right: we are seeing the beginning of a serious renewal in the Church. I hope that SSPX will cease its blind and prideful ways to help with that work of the Pope of unity.

  79. dspecht says:

    wmeyer (and Horatius):

    Sorry, I really tought that all of you knew the facts that Paul VI wanted to replace the old form by the new, that he prohibited the old and that you needed a special indult to celebrate it (and until 1984 only granted to old and ill priests – and to English priests in the “Agatha-Cristie-indult”).

    But here then of course some quotes/links for you:

    - Missale Romanum 1970: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum_lt.html

    - Instructio „de Constitutione Apostolica ´Missale Romanum´“, in: Enchiridion Documentorum Instaurationis Liturgicae I ,633, nr. 1990: „Sacerdotes aetate provecti qui Missam sine populo celebrant, quique graviores forsitan experiantur diffcultates in novo Ordine Missae et novis textibus Missalis Romani et Ordinis lectionum Missae in usum assumendis, possunt, de consensu sui Ordinarii, ritus et textus qui nunc sunt in usu retinere.“

    - Notficatio „de Missali Romano, Liturgia Horarum et Calendario“, 14. Juni 1971, in: Enchiridion Documentorum Instaurationis Liturgicae I, 803, nr. 2578.

    - Notificatio „de Missali Romano“, 28. Okt. 1974, in: Enchiridion Documentorum Instaurationis Liturgicae II, 56, nr. 3317.

    - Allocutio Pauli VI in Consitorio, 24. Mai 1976, in: Enchiridion Documentorum Instaurationis Liturgicae II, 117, nr. 3477: „Novus Ordo promulgatus est, ut in locum veteris substitueretur post maturam deliberationem, atque ad exsequendas normas, quae a Concilio Vaticano II impertitae sunt.“

    - quatuor ab hinc annos 1984: http://www.adoremus.org/Quattuorabhincannos.html

  80. dspecht says:

    Dennis Martin:

    “The text does not exist in a vacuum. Your arguments assume that it does.

    No, not at all. Vice versa: you seem to pull the texts out of context. I exactly pointed to that you have to read the texts (of Vat. II as well as of the NOM) in context: and context makes clear that they were designed to be interpreted in a ruptural way and at least designed purposely ambiguos.

    So I get your point of implementation and interpretation in a non-ruptural way.
    And I do not deny that you (perhaps, at least in many cases [for all cases I would not admit, but let us asume for the sake of argument that even in all cases]) CAN implement or interprete them in a sound way.

    But you do not get my point: the very problem is, that it is only a “CAN” – and that you very easily can interprete or implement them in a ruptural way.

    And that the texts and especially the context (and the historical framework, the intentions of the writers, etc.) shows that this openess to ruptural interpretation is purposely.

    So the texts are (at least) “captiosi/a” – and therefore EVIL.

    If you can very easily implement resp. interprete them in a ruptural way then this shows that they are EVIL.

  81. Fr Jackson says:

    So, what does “legitimate” mean?
    (1) Well, it could just be a synonym for “legal” as some have argued above. I do not think that is a complete enough definition, but let’s just explore that for the sake of argument. The SSPX would probably answer the “legal” argument with something along the lines of saying that it represents an abuse of power since (a) human laws must ultimately be in line with divine laws and the New Mass opened the door (by removing obstacles and prohibitions) to abuses and equivocations that cannot be in line with divine law, and (b) its promulgation was done in an abusive manner that was only finally corrected in 2007 with the “numquam abrogatum” statement.
    (2) But legitimate means a lot more than just “legal” because we are talking about liturgy. Liturgy does NOT become legitimate by promulgation by legitimate authority alone: it must also be something rooted in an organic development. This is what Cardinal Ratzinger was criticizing when he wrote: “What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it – as in a manufacturing process – with a fabrication, a banal on -the-spot product.” Hence, one could postulate that the SSPX ought to refuse to recognize the New Mass as “legitimate” based on the writings of the present Pope himself.

  82. Horatius says:

    dspecht,
    None of what you quote is to the point. For example, contrary to what you claim, nowhere does Pope Paul VI say he is ‘replacing’ the Mass, an impossibility, nowhere that he is ‘prohibiting’ it. In fact, he writes quite clearly, in the Latin text you oddly give the link for, that he has in mind the spirit of the post-tridentine liturgy: “Cum Decessor Noster S. Pius V principem Missalis Romani editionem promulgavit, illud veluti quoddam unitatis liturgicae instrumentum idemque tamquam genuini religi?sique cultus in Ecclesia monumentum christiano populo repraesentavit” (Missale Romanum ex decreto Concilii Oecumenci Vaticani II instauratum promulgatur). I say oddly because the text belies what you claim.

    So, to repeat with our present Holy Father, never was the form abrogated—just as previous forms were never abrogated at Trent.

    One rite, two forms: this should be a mantra for some hell bent on denigrating the Mass in either form and the work of our Holy Father.

  83. dspecht says:

    wmeyer:

    Of the instruction of Okt. 28th 1974 I have only a German translation.
    It says that from the point of time on when the Missal is aproved by an episcopal conference in the vernacular all the Masses (if in vernacular or latin) are allowed to be celebrated ONLY according to the new Missal and that there is only an exception for old, ill priests.

    For some quotes in English see here (in an very instructive article):

    http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=19&catname=8#_ednref52

  84. Horatius says:

    dspecht,
    Do you really suppose that a sedevacantist site–to which you have just given a link–is competent to provide a fair and balanced view?

    If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would love to sell you for a reasonable price.

  85. Dennis Martin says:

    dspecht: “But you do not get my point: the very problem is, that it is only a “CAN” – and that you very easily can interprete or implement them in a ruptural way.”

    I believe I do get your point. Nor did I ever deny that it not only can be but was implemented as a rupture. But I also insist that it not only can but in fact was implemented in continuity.

    Both of these happened. The first happened in the vast majority of cases. I do not dispute that and I call it a great and horrible tragedy.

    What I do dispute is that the text of the Mass in the Novus Ordo form itself is to blame for this.

    Fr. Jackson, points well taken about legitimacy. I considered making the same point yesterday but never wrote it down. Legitimacy is more than mere legality and that’s what the Holy Father is asking us to give to the OF. However in the quote from then Cardinal Ratzinger note that he carefully says that “what happened after the Council” was a rupture. What does he mean by “after the Councl” (hermeneutics again). The Consilium’s revision of the Mass happened after the council. Is he saying that it went against organic development as Alcuin Reid says? Perhaps. Except that he chose (deliberately?) to be ambiguous and not to say exactly that. The horrific implementation of the Concilium’s work also happened after the Council. He could have specified that only the implementation was a violation of organic development. He did not.

    He left it ambiguous.

    Which
    was
    my
    point.

    You cannot separate the text of the Mass from the way it is celebrated. Originally there was no text. The Mass was codified first by practice, by celebrating it, by ars celebrandi, based on what Jesus mandated but undergoing organic development. No need to write it down because everyone who needed to know (the bishops–there were no priests celebrating Eucharist during the first two centuries) what to say and what to do (no Black and Red, in writing, yet), knew it by heart and had learned it from it having been tradited to them.

    Of course the time came when it was necessary to write it down and then to revise and organically develop the written text. But we are so stuck on text that we think that in the case of this Great Mystery the Text IS somehow the Thing in Itself.

    It is not. The Mass IS insofar as it is celebrated.

    The way it came to be celebrated after the Council was a rupture with organic development.

    I insist, however, that the choice to vernacularize in toto and to switch totally to versus populum contributed far more to the rupture that Cardinal Ratzinger refers to than did any of the problematic and flawed passages of the Novus Ordo Missae itself.

    None of that really matters. The damage done to the Church over the past decades was done by the whole package, the text, the rubrics and the implementation and interpretation (or abandoning of) the text and rubrics. Our mess is the result of the whole package. As we seek to climb out of the whole, it’s vital to remember that, in diagnosing the disease, which must be done, focusing on the least important aspect (and I believe the Latin text is the least important factor, if for no other reason than that the NO was rarely celebrated in Latin, so vernacularization, which was NOT required by the Latin text, has to be more significant) we will undermine our ability to cure the disease.

  86. dspecht says:

    Horatius:

    nowhere does Pope Paul VI say he is ‘replacing’ the Mass HÄÄ?????????

    Well, I do not assume you really read my quotes.
    I quoted f.e.: Novus Ordo promulgatus est, ut in locum veteris substitueretur what is more than clear (“substitute” means replace!!).

    and you go on:
    …nowhere that he is ‘prohibiting’ it Again ?????

    If you read the notification of 28. Okt 1974 it says expressely that from a given point of time it is ONLY allowed to celebrate Mass according to the new form. Only old and ill priests can be granted a special indult (by their ordinaries) to allow them to celebrate the old form (but here only in missae sine populo)

    In Masses cum populo it is strictly PROHIBITED to use the old Missal, even for those ill priests!! There can not be any indult, any exception!!

    And didn´t you notice the other indult quotes? Indult means that you get some special permission for what is generally PROHIBITED. (If it were not prohibited, you would not need an indult.)

    Read also the 1971 instruction!
    Or see some English translations in the article linked above!

    I doubt that there can be a fruitful discussion if you do not consider the given documents and quotes. That´s a pity but I have to face it. Nevertheless thank you for discussing.

    Fr. Jackson:

    Exactly!

  87. Dennis Martin says:

    Dspecht wrote: “I exactly pointed to that you have to read the texts (of Vat. II as well as of the NOM) in context: and context makes clear that they were designed to be interpreted in a ruptural way and at least designed purposely ambiguos.”

    What about the context of Vatican II makes clear that the texts of Vatican II were to be read with a hermeneutic of rupture? Benedict XVI said exactly the opposite in his Nov. 2005 address to the papal household.

    What about the context of Vatican II makes clear that the text of the Novus Ordo Missae is to be read in a hermeneutic of rupture?

    I suspect you mean the fact that 90% of the priests and bishops read the NOM with a hermeneutic of rupture. By context you mean “that which in fact happened.” But Msgr Schuler did not. Joseph Ratzinger did not. Martin Hellriegel did not. I guess they ignored context?

    What is the context for the texts of the council? For the text of the Novus Ordo Missae?

    Those who read these texts with a hermeneutic of rupture, the vast majority, took as their context the “modern world,” elements of the Reformation critique of the Catholic Church and the Mass and such like.

    Joseph Ratzinger and Msgr. Schuler and others took as the proper and authoritative context the ancient tradition of the Church. If you come at the texts of Vatican II you will indeed read them as in continuity. Flawed by ambiguity at places but overall, capable of a hermeneutic of continuity. No context forces one to read them in rupture. If you deny that, then your quarrel is with Joseph Ratzinger, not me.

    But let me offer my own experience. When I was considering becoming a Catholic, which involved some pretty serious personal costs, I first read the Catechism of the Council of Trent. My spiritual father, Fr. Paul Quay of blessed memory had advised me to choose some systematic presentation of the Catholic faith. He did not tell me which one to choose. I’m a historian. I had read enough in the Catholic press and lived among Catholic intellectuals long enough to know that the Council of Trent was where what might once have been a great Tradition shifted into hardening of the arteries and rigid authoritarian deformation. So, being a contrarian of many years’ standing, I thought, I’ll start with what everyone says is the Bogeyman. If I find no deal-breakers there, then this Catholic faith might be what I’m looking for. I found nothing that I could not agree with there (having studied the medieval and patristic tradition for 15 years at that point professionally as a historian).

    Only then did I read the major documents of Vatican II. The single thing that impressed me, again and again, which was contrary to what I expected, was how very, very traditional those documents were. How nothing in them was really irreconciliable with Trent. Perhaps I missed just exactly those terrible parts of Vatican II that so exercise the SSPX. Perhaps I just didn’t know what I was doing. But the single impression I took away was Continuity.

    Which cemented my decision to become a Catholic. If this Council, which supposedly finally overturned centuries of deformity and brought the Church kicking and screaming into the Modern World (what I had been led to believe) could do it with documents that lined up with the Tradition I had come to know, then it must be for real the Church of Jesus Christ indefectably guarded from error.

    So, while many can and do read Vatican II and the text of the Novus Ordo Missae as ruptures with tradition, I know from personal experience and the experience of the Monsignor Schulers of the world that nothing compels this reading. Some feller named Ratzinger said the same thing.

    So I don’t know what “context” you are referring to that would compel a rupture-reading of either V-II or NOM.

  88. dspecht says:

    Horatius:

    Re the linked site:

    I am NOT sedevacantist, and I even do NOT agree with the given argumentation on the site (or I am not sure if the author is right on all points) – but it provides a very good overview over all the relevant documents and some English translation of them and makes some good points.

    If you are not able to see that even persons you do not agree with can provide some solid quotes and references (or sometimes also good arguments) then my view that a fruitful discussion with you is not possible is affirmed.

    I just linked the site to help persons that can not read latin or that are not able to check up all the quotes (and not for saying that I agree with all the author of the site says).
    You yourselfe demonstrated, that you did not check all the documents I pointed to or did not read or understand the latin quotes.

    I should end this fruitless and unscholarly debate, I think. Read the links in Latin or English – or do not read them, fine, but then we can not discuss further, sorry.

  89. Horatius says:

    dspecht:

    Besides ignoring everything I have written in reply to your posts, and using a sedevacantist site for your sketchy information, you do not seem at all to appreciate the Latin (you hammer away at one word without considering the context), yet even your understanding of that word is wrong. In Lewis and Short, substituo NEVER means ‘to replace.’ Hence, in English, true to the etymon, we substitute one teacher for another–something that is temporary. If we replace one for another, we do so for good.

    But then, if you have swallowed what the sedevacantists are offering, at least you have something to disgorge at the earliest possible opportunity.

  90. Horatius says:

    Another odd reply which sidesteps the issue. Good that you are not a sedevacantist. Very glad to hear that. Bad that you would trust a sedevacantist site, something no scholar would do. For the rest, since you are not a scholar, just follow the Pope: one rite, two forms. God bless.

  91. dspecht says:

    Dennis Martin:

    So I don’t know what “context” you are referring to that would compel a rupture-reading of either V-II or NOM.

    The time of the 1960ies, the theological debates then, the persons influencing the Council resp. the NOM (Rahner, de Lubac, etc. – Bugnini etc.), their intentions, the “little Konzilskompedium” of Rahner-Vorgrimmler, the debates at Vat. II (see de Mattei or Wiltgen), …

  92. Horatius says:

    Anybody who would equate Henri de Lubac with Cardinal Bugnini has NOT read Henri de Lubac. Which Rahner, Karl or Hugo? A rhetorical question. God help us all.

  93. acardnal says:

    Bugnini was not a Cardinal. Archbishop.

  94. wmeyer says:

    @Dennis Martin Only then did I read the major documents of Vatican II. The single thing that impressed me, again and again, which was contrary to what I expected, was how very, very traditional those documents were.

    Yes, they are, but unfortunately, they have been subject to rather loose, even creative, interpretation.

  95. Horatius says:

    Yes,
    acardnal,

    thanks.

  96. acardnal says:

    Complementing what wmeyer said, the V2 docs are also ambiguous and open to interpretation (some critics say intentionally made dubious) unlike the documents of the Council of Trent – especially its catechism which uses very clear, declarative sentences with the word “anathema” used throughout to avoid ambiguity.

  97. Bender says:

    Liturgy does NOT become legitimate by promulgation by legitimate authority alone: it must also be something rooted in an organic development. This is what Cardinal Ratzinger was criticizing when he wrote: “What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it – as in a manufacturing process – with a fabrication, a banal on -the-spot product.” Hence, one could postulate that the SSPX ought to refuse to recognize the New Mass as “legitimate” based on the writings of the present Pope himself.
    _________________

    (1) Liturgy DOES become legitimate by promulgation by legitimate authority alone. Where Peter is, there is the Church. What Peter says is so. End of discussion. The Lord has given him and his successors the power to bind and to loose. If the Pope says this or that form, or this or that rite, of the One Holy Mass is legitimate, then ipso facto, it is legitimate.

    (2) Pope Benedict did not say what is quoted above. Cardinal Ratzinger said it. There is a difference. A big difference. One has magisterial authority, the other, as brilliant as he was, did not.

    Here is what Pope Benedict has, in fact, authoritatively said

    It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite. . . .
    There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

    To repeat — There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal . . . there is growth and progress, but no rupture. . . . The priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books.

  98. Bender says:

    And, of course, there is the Instruction approved by Pope Benedict –

    19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.

    So, no, one cannot postulate that the SSPX — or anyone that supports them — ought to refuse to recognize the New Mass as “legitimate” based on the writings and instructions of the present Pope himself. Quite to the contrary.

  99. Fr Jackson says:

    @Bender
    Three distinctions you’re missing:
    (1) Law as such becomes legitimate by promulgation by legitimate authority, all else being equal. Liturgy as such can be legitimate before such promulgation, or illegitimate in spite of such promulgation. Liturgy as law becomes legitimate by promulgation by legitimate authority (all else being equal…)
    (2) Even law itself as such does not become legitimate by promulgation by legitimate authority alone; in addition, it must (a) fulfill the ratio of law, and, (b) be within the competence of the lawgiver.
    (3) Even Peter’s authority has limits. If the Pope were to say, for example, that he wished to govern the Church without bishops (and how tempting that might be sometimes, eh?) that would be an illegitimate law. There you have an example of when your principle “What Peter says is so” is not a sufficiently distinguished statement.

  100. Horatius says:

    Bender is, again, right.

    One rite, two forms: so the Pope has defined it. It remains for the Bishops to require seminaries to train in the old and the new form. As Fr. Z. has pointed out, this is slow to happen.

    Dennis Martin is, again, right. The context of V II and of the NOM shows continuity, not rupture.

    As usual, to be deep in history is to cease to be SSPX.

  101. Horatius says:

    Would you care to prove that the “documents of Trent” are without ambiguity,

    acardnal?

  102. rmj says:

    “‘An ecumenical Council, according to the Catholic faith, is always the Church’s supreme magisterium,’ stated the new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Gerhard Müller, in an interview with Catholic news network EWTN News” That Bp. asserts such seems to place the authority of an ecumenical council above the authority even of the Holy Father. If an ecumenical council is the Church’s supreme magisterium, then the Holy Father is not. How is this not the heresy of conciliarism condemned by both the 5th Lateran and 1st Vatican Councils?
    Plainly, as these same councils teach, it is in the Holy Father that the supreme magsterium “subsists”: “they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that
    this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.” (Vatican I, Session 4, Ch. 3, para. 8 & 9)
    Now as regards the authority of the Second Vatican Council, this is what the Supreme Magisterium, Pope Paul VI, had to say about that. In a general audience held a mere month (January 12, 1966) after the close of the council His Holiness said “There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L’Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)