Comments on Creative Minority Report: No Latin Mass Without SSPX?

"How to Serve Low Mass" CD is a beautiful training...

2008-06-19T09:30:01.359-04:00

"How to Serve Low Mass" CD is a beautiful training exercise for an Altar Server to learn how to serve Low Mass. The instruction was given by a Roman Catholic Priest from Catholic University of America in the 1950s. The training gives an overview of the functions and duties of an Altar Server throughout Mass, as well as the Latin prayers he must recite and when. This CD is a great guide for any Altar Server trying to learn to serve Mass, but also great for a layperson to devoutly learn the prayers and rubrics of the traditional Latin Roman Rite of Mass.

http://www.lulu.com/content/2740010

-- I MUST SAY THIS CD WAS TRULY "EXTRAORDINARY FORM" TO THE LETTER. GREAT TRIDENTINE PRAYERS RECITED BY TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC PRIEST AND SERVER.

A MUST HAVE FOR ALL SERVERS, SEMINARIANS, DEACONS, AND PRIESTS.

" False ecumenism?"Judged by whom?" A Pope who con...

2008-04-14T00:05:09.304-04:00

" False ecumenism?"

Judged by whom?

" A Pope who contradicts Catholic doctrine... for more than 40 years of his life?"

Judged by whom?

At 19 I was all on board with these assesments - what I saw didn't fit with my vision, I was willing to ascribe it to HIS problem.

From the most pragmatic standpoint the question becomes, how do you feel comfortable setting out the litmus tests or knowing that you act on info that is accurate?

This rings of arguments I hear perenially from our buddies the Greeks - "We are all for the papacy up until it quit being Orthodox!"

This rings of arguments I hear perenially from our buddies the Ultrajectines - "We are all for the papacy up until it quit being rightly understood in 1871!"

This rings of arguments I hear perenially from our buddies the sedevacantists - "We are all for the papacy when we have a REAL one again! How will we know it is real? It will be obvious because..."

1000 difficulties do not make one doubt - my issues with how things have been handled at different levels which were not to my satisfaction are my own issues. I outgrew my days of armchair poping.

Prudential decisions being what they are, they aren't yours to worry about inasmuch as they don't affect you. You can easily join up with a TLM parish and work on what IS yours to work on - growth in holiness and a good death. Pray for him that he is wise in prudential decisions, and then leave them to HIM. He will answer for everything he has done, you will answer for what you are responsible for.

You aren't responsible for ecumenism, you aren't responsible for the last 40 years. You are responsible for you.

Anon,Sir. I'm happy you agree with my points abou...

2008-04-13T23:35:04.047-04:00

Anon,

Sir. I'm happy you agree with my points about popes praying in mosques, but really, what are you talking about?

Exactly what is the SSPX making up or inventing as you put it in order to refuse submission to the Pope?

Benedict XVI is traveling to the US next week and plans to participate in an "ecumenical" prayer gathering as well as in a Jewish synogogue.

"Benedict's visit to the Park East synagogue on April 18 is to be the first by any pope to a Jewish house of worship in the United States and the third to any synagogue, The New York Times reported.

"On April 17, the pope's schedule includes a meeting with 150 religious leaders from various faiths at the John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington. He has added a separate brief meeting with 50 Jewish attendees when he will present them with Passover greetings." NEW YORK TIMES

Now... what is the SSPX inventing? False ecumenism? A Pope who contradicts Catholic doctrine... for more than 40 years of his life? Are they inventing bent and broken crosses? Are they inventing a new position about the salvation of the Jews? Are they de-constructing Limbo? Are they saying Catholics may now marry non-Catholics with no obligation to raise their children Catholic? Are they inventing unchecked sex education in Catholic elementary schools?

What in your opinion, or anyone's for that matter, is the SSPX inventing?

Rome has barely come back to her senses... and I say barely because that's what it is... on one issue, the TLM... And the SSPX is supposed to simply trust and join the ranks of those who for years allowed them to be hacked at with the most maniacal agendas to squash their very existence?

I am so sick and tired of this attitude toward the SSPX... that somehow they have fault in this whole BS situation. That somehow they're required by law to placate to the Pope for being right for 35 years.

It has been clear for some time that the SSPX situation is an "internal" matter in the Catholic Church. I'm sure you agree with this since it comes from Hoyos.

What then is the SSPX supposed to accept? On what basis? That they are in schism? Separated?

Is it the excommunication? The so-called excommunication on paper?

Maybe it's worth honing in on the consecrations for a bit.

It seems for Novus Ordo Catholics, it shouldn't matter why Lefebvre was told he could not consecrate 4 new bishops. If he was told no, then that's it... he's a schismatic rebel... forget the bushels of liberal anti-Christs who pose as bishops all over the world unchecked... let's focus on the "disobedience" of a guy who had the gall to protect the future of the Catholic Faith.

Why was Lefebvre told not to consecrate his bishops?

And at this point, why would the SSPX publicly change it's "position" with a man who once again plans to scandalize the remaining Catholic world with his promotion of false ecumenism within the week?

I agree with many of Mr. Sanborn's points, and I d...

2008-04-11T20:00:38.179-04:00

I agree with many of Mr. Sanborn's points, and I did not mean to suggest that prayers of popes in mosques are acceptable. Such prayers are an abomination, as was the kissing of the Qu'ran by Pope John Paul II. May God forfend such dangerous behaviour, dangerous to souls, that is.

But I mean that the S.S.P.X is not free, if it be truly Catholic, to invent reasons for refusing submission to the Pope. There is such a thing as rightful disobedience but it is only justified as a necessity. When there is no necessity, it is wrong. Pope John Paul II, for all his fault, gave the S.S.P.X a means of avoiding any rightful disobedience. He did this in 2000 when he offered the Society freedom from the local bishops without endangering the Society's mission. Pope John Paul II offered, in fact, FAR MORE than what Apb. Lefebvre was prepared to accept in 1988. So how can the Society bishops justify their continued disobedience, a disobedience that Abp. L. would not have countenanced for one second? We are not free to disobey just because we are angry, even if this anger is legitimate. Many joined the Protestants in the sixteenth century because they were righteously angry over abuses in the Church. Does that justify disobedience? It does not.

As I see it, from 1976 to 2000, the S.S.P.X was a Catholic organisation in a state of rightful disobedience, even if other faithful need not share its views without compromising their faith. But, since 2000, the S.S.P.X is objectively moving into *real* schism. Pope John Paul II warned about this tendency in 1998: the longer you remain in separation, the greater the risk of this.

So, now, it seems to me, Bishop Williamson does what he can to keep distance between the Society and Rome. He might be motivated by a good heart, but, objectively speaking, his direction is gravely injurious to souls. Souls need union with Rome as a norm. When a union in obedience is possible, it is mandatory. It is now possible.

To make the situation crystal clear to the Society, it is likely also the case that the Society will face decline and then decimation if it does not do the right thing.

P.K.T.P.

Anon,I'm seeing a fair number of words in your pos...

2008-04-11T16:38:31.822-04:00

Anon,

I'm seeing a fair number of words in your posts at the average reader would have to run to a dictionary for...

My use of the words "intrinsic" and "evil" are not meant to be separatist. It shouldn't be too much to quote the SSPX whose desire is not to anger the uneducated.

It is unfair to cite known atrocities such as our Pope praying with Muslims in a Mosque or in the past, kissing a Koran, and then opine that "archtraditionalists" merely use such facts as a means to reject the Pope. Frankly if one wishes to reject the Pope, he certainly doesn't need to cite these atrocities to do it.

In fact a cogent argument could be made for the idea that the Novus Ordo Church is the entity that wishes to reject the Pope, or more clearly, the Office of the Holy See.

We see stark contradiction between Vatican II documents and previous documents. Opposing ideas, each claiming to be the truth, for the love of God!

Paul VI freely gave the Papal Tiara to the United Nations!!! Who rejects the Pope here?

Forgive my exclamations... my emotional reaction to such anti-Catholic facts are based on the silly notion that the truth does not change. Perhaps I should better train myself to be more stoic about them... just what the world needs.

This perhaps is the quintessential question in all of the 40 years of hub-bub... Who is for the Pope? Who is for the Office of the Papacy?

Can a man be seated in the Chair of Peter and then dismantle it? Who then are the faithful? Those who say he is wrong or those who say he is right... because he is the Pope?

Millions of souls are likely damned to Hell because of the worldly mess that has been made of our Catholic Church over the last 40 years. In any other organization on the planet, when such disunities and failures arise, who is looked to? The leader! Consider the US Army, consider Coco-Cola for God's sake.

Since John XXIII, the popes have made an insane mess of the Catholic Church. Should I be afraid to say that? Should I sweep that fact under the rug while souls get swept into Hell? If I become emotional about these issues, am I a separatist? Am I rejecting the Pope?

Let me just ask this quesiton for now and then I'll shut up for a bit.

Are the Jews assured of salvation in their current state?

SS

So, to conclude:No Latin Mass without the S.S.P.X:...

2008-04-11T15:11:38.419-04:00

So, to conclude:

No Latin Mass without the S.S.P.X: Is this an axiom we can take on faith?

Answer: no, it's an axiom which we can safely believe by considerating the facts, especially the statistical facts.

I'm sure.

P.K.T.P.

On Mr. Sanborn's comment that the New Mass is "int...

2008-04-10T06:07:12.759-04:00

On Mr. Sanborn's comment that the New Mass is "intrisically evil". This is an expression which has been used by various people at the highest levels in the S.S.P.X. My own view is that this expressions means to be controversial; it seeks to cause trouble. It is the sort of expression that would cause most bloggers here to fulminate against the Society. I don't think that the expression is constructive; it is meant to distance the Society from those who are attached to the New Mass. The expression has this effect because, in English, 'evil' most often includes the subjective element. For example, it carries this subjective meaning in the expression, "Your actions are truly evil". We use the word in the purely objective sense less often, as in "a lack of education is an evil which harms society". To solve this problem and diffuse the issue, we can say that the New Mass is faulty in a way which endangers souls.

Now there are many reasons for levelling this charge, but the main one is that the New Mass fails to convey the primary meaning of liturgical Sacrifice; in fact, it is ambiguous about the most important meaning of the Mass itself. One of the ends of the Holy Mass is the inculcation of doctrine: the Mass is our first and greatest catechism. Since the salvation of souls is the highest law and the Sacrifice, properly understood, is the primary means of saving both the living and the dead, this failing is very serious.

I think that Benedict XVI means to fix this problem by altering the text of the New Mass, a liturgy which, despite this serious fault is still valid and is still orthodox, and still fulfils the four ends of prayer.

The quickest and easiest way to rectify the problem is to abolish the Novus Ordo Offertory and restore the Traditional one to the N.O.M. The old Offertory expresses univocally the primary meaning the Sacrifice--the meaning which has been omitted so as not to offend Protestants--in its opening prayer, the "Suspice, sancte Pater", mainly because of its inclusion of "hostiam [victim]".

Another way to solve the problem would be to abolish all the alternate Eucharistic prayers, or at least some of them (especially No. 2). But I think that this would encounter far more opposition from the curia and the bishops of the world.

I am not trying to suggest that the New Mass is something I could ever celebrate, no matter how reformed it is. I could not, for it is not the outcome of organic growth. However, it is not wrong for traditionalists to favour a rectification of the New Mass in order to clarify the meaning of the Mass.

There are other problems in the New Mass which need correction. I think that the "Indulgentiam" should be restored to the optional Confiteor, for example. Once again, it was removed because Protestants do not believe in the power of priests to absolve sins, even venial sins.

To be honest with you, Mr. Sanborn, I must say that, quite often, I think that archtraditionalists are only proclaiming some of these faults in polemical terms as an excuse for rejecting the Pope. They feel outrage because of some of the post-conciliar changes, and they want to find ways, I think, of showing their vehement opposition to him. This assessment is based on my own reactions and my own emotions. I too feel real outrage when I see 'papal youth Masses' with rock noise (which, in my view, is formally evil) in which adolescents fornicate in tents on the very spot where they will receive Holy Communion the next day. I tool feel outrage when I hear that consecrated hosts are left to the sweepers or that the Pope has prayed in a mosque with infidels whose religion comes from the maw of Hell.

But we must try try try to separate these emotions from right reason and endeavour with all our souls to remain united in obedience to the Vicar of Christ. It does not mean becoming a silly 'conservative'; we can remains as traditionalists who revile 'conservatism' almost as much as we revile liberalism. But we must be Catholic!

Right reason and logic dictate, in my view, that, at this time, the S.S.P.X should strive for reconciliation with Rome, and it should not seek ways to obstruct that or to incite anger on the other side. Let us stick to the facts but keep in mind at all times that the salvation of souls is the first law.

The Pope has made it possible for the Society to reconcile without threatening its mission. The solution is a provisional ordinary structure ad experimentum while discussions ensue. The structure can be established in such a way that either party to it can dissolve it at its pleasure.

My criticism of archtraditionalism (look at all those syllables!) is that it looks for excuses for division. The archtraditionalist runs away when the Pope tries to embrace him, just as the conservative papolater tries to embrace and encourage the Pope even when he does something wrong. Let's avoid both and rejoice in the truth, always under the authority of St. Peter's Successor.

P.K.T.P.

On the last poster's points. First of all, I ment...

2008-04-10T01:29:45.328-04:00

On the last poster's points. First of all, I mentioned a coming decline and eventual decimation for the S.S.P.X should it not accept regularisation. But I did not mean to suggest that the N.O.M. is, in contrast, healthy and growing. The N.O.M.'s decline was precipitous from 1970 to to about 1985. Since then, it has continued to decline (in terms of Massgoers and ordinations, for example), but at a slower rate. Internationally, while the Church continues to grow in terms of sheer numbers, what ultimately counts is the per centage of faithful in the world. The increase in the per centage of the people on earth who are Catholic slowed to a crawl around 1990 and flatlined by the end of the last century. Then began a decline which is very very slight at first but which will likely accelerate, mutatis mutandis.

But keep in mind that the New Mass is an elephant, next to which we are a mouse, or even a fly. So I do not expect the New Mass to disappear in the foreseeable future. It might disappear owing to a juridical act but not from pressure from below. Not in our lifetimes.

Now, when I was referring to the situation of the S.S.P.X, I was not comparising it with that of the New Mass but with that of regularised Traditional Latin Masses. I will not haul out numbers tonight, but my assessment is that there was an exponential growth in the Society (I refer here to the *rate* of growth) from its foundation in 1970 to about 1990. This rate slowed considerably after the unapproved consecrations of 1988. Growth continued, but at a much slower rate and at a rate that has continued to decline gradually since the mid 1990s. This was caused, I think, by the 'competition': the exponential growth in Indult Masses between 1988 and 1993, which continued at a slower rate from 1993 to about 1998 before it also flatlined.

It terms of priests, the Society went very quickly from 100 to 400 but it has taken ages and ages to get from 400 to 500.

Now, along comes "Summorum Pontificum" (S.P.). Everything has changed overnight. We are now seeing a growth in regularised Masses that is unprecedented; it even makes the initial growth under "Ecclesia Dei" look small. For example, in the U.S.A., more dioceses have gained every-Sunday Traditional Latin Masses in the last nine months than in the previous ten to twelve years. That is positively AMAZING growth: I've never seen anything even remotely close to it. We are living in very exciting times. And, owing to the 'learning lag', many more T.L.M.s are coming. That is what has acted like a wild narcotic on the 'conservatives' on this blog, so that they dream of having arrived at this point on their own. They would love, somehow, to erase the last three decades and then claim that they did it all by themselves through prayer. They are almost as much as joke as the liberals. Really, a conservative is only a liberal in slow motion.

Now, the problem for the S.S.P.X is that most faithful simply will not attend a Society Mass if a regularised T.L.M. is available. The numbers prove that. And they prove it most where it counts most: in Latin America.

Ultimately, Latin America is everything, and the U.S.A. and Europe are just a joke compared to it. We should all be learning Spanish (even though French is obviously the language of the highest culture by far). Fully one half of the faithful live in Latin America. After nearly forty years of hard work, the S.S.P.X has had very little success there. It has done all right in Argentina and nowhere else. In contrast, owing to S.P., regularised Masses in Latin America are beginning to appear all over the countryside. This is a bit of an exaggeration but the signs are not good for the S.S.P.X. To Latin Americans, a Catholicism not blessed by the Pope is unthinkable. They can imagine going over to wildly emotional Pentecostal Protestantism, but not to 'a Catholicsm without the Pope'.

The Society has also not done all that well in the U.S.A. Regularised every-Sunday Masses now outnumber those of the Society by a ratio of 2.5:1, soon to be 3:1.

The Society has done best in France and South-West Germany. But now, thanks to S.P., there are regularised Masses all over France: 86% of French faithful have one every Sunday in their dioceses. Once Rheims falls to the forces of goodness and truth and the evil Abp. Jordan capitulates, it will be a mopping up operation for us there. And we are now finally seeing the same thing happening in Germany, where the number of every-Sunday T.L.M. dioceses has MORE THAN DOUBLED in just eight months.

Ecclesia Dei of 1988 definitely slowed the growth of the Society, and seriously. But that is a drop in the bucket compared to the effect of S.P. I think that it will slow Society growth to nil and then begin to cause its decline. If current trends continue, the more moderate Society supporters will leave over the next ten years, and it will become a refuge more and more of the extreme, the insane, the wild, and of fascists, contrarians (which is what I am), distributists, royalists (which is also what I am), eccentrics, ritualists, and what Evelyn Waugh called 'homosexuals with bad accents'.

I am using a bit of overstatement and humour here to make a point. What I mean is that, as S.P. spreads, the more normal types from the Society will leave, and as they leave, the remaining normals will feel less and less comfortable among the nutcases.

So it is in the best interest of the Society to make an arrangement with the Holy See. And the Church needs the Society right now to deal with the nutcases on the left because those are the lunatics who are really dangerous.

It's in the best interest of everyone for the Society to become regularised, with the sole exception of the eccentrics, contrarians, and lunatics everywhere.

P.K.T.P.

Anon,I would like to drop back to a previous point...

2008-04-09T23:07:13.524-04:00

Anon,

I would like to drop back to a previous point you made regarding the SSPX. You mentioned that unless they made some sort of agreement (and I am paraphrasing here out of laziness) that eventually they would face decline and then decimation.

How do you arrive at this conclusion? Everywhere I look in the Catholic world I see decline and decimation, with rare exception and of course those exceptions are tradition based groups.

The SSPX has done nothing but grow at a pace they can hardly keep up with. Much of this growth has been the result of the Novus Ordo Church attempting to build a Burger King across the street from McDonald's, only to realize we like McD's burgers better... lots of free publicity and advertising.

Even offshoots such as the Fraternity of Saint Peter (which must make the SSPX good according to the logic of a previous post... since the SSPV somehow makes them bad...) have helped to bring many to the SSPX... or more appropriately traditional Catholicism in the raw.

As for Bishop Fellay's comments... I think it's fair to say they are based (in my own view)on the fact that there is no ability to compromise with something intrinsically evil... and to follow up on your previous "evil" comment... of course they mean lacking a due good. You are fully aware of that I'm sure. I know the word evil conjures up witch's brew and pitch forks...

The Novus Ordo lacks a due good in the same way a catechism that omits the Holy Trinity lacks a due good.

It is the Novus Ordo that will decimate itself in time.

And not to be flippant, but if the SSPX were to simply follow all of the example of the truly disobedient, if they're to take anything from them... their's is simply a waiting game. And of course it's no game, but surely if the once schismatic are now brethren... if heretics now simply lack the fullness of truth... perhaps Rome will give up on its own auto-demolition and its completely illogical position on the SSPX.

And then the Force will be in balance again...

Dear Mr. Sanborn:Thank you for the excellent link....

2008-04-09T14:05:34.928-04:00

Dear Mr. Sanborn:

Thank you for the excellent link. I urge everyone on this blog to read it. It is very interesting.

My first reaction to Bishop Fellay's comments is that, at first, he seems to be open to a provisional structure while negotiations ensue, for he writes that doctrine must be resolved before the conclusion of a "final practical canonical agreement". Note the term "final". But then he seems to close this door, when he uses the phrase "any sort of practical agreement". Still, I sense from his tone that he is at least open to a provisional structure during discussions.

One problem, however, is that Bishop Fellay does not seem to be interested in making any sort of formal response to move the process forward. He seems to accept the idea that S.P. fulfils his first pre-condition but their is no sense that he plans to thank the Holy Father in any public or private letter. It may be that he will wait to see how S.P. is implemented.

I also noticed that, when the questioner asked why the S.S.P.X did not accept what the Campos and I.P.B. had accepted, he did not answer the question but changed the subject.

If Bishop Fellay has not had any discussions with Rome since November of 2005, we might ask why. It would be good for the Church for us to move forward.

P.K.T.P.

ok... well i've tried to post the link but it does...

2008-04-09T09:42:51.580-04:00

ok... well i've tried to post the link but it doesn't seem to want the whole thing.

It's a Remnant article. My email address is sjsanborn@gmail.com if you'd like it.

SS

http://remnantnewspaper.com/archives/archive-2007-...

2008-04-09T09:41:28.171-04:00

http://remnantnewspaper.com/archives/archive-2007-0715-bishop_fellay_on_summorum_pontif.htm

Here is a much better source for the information.h...

2008-04-09T09:39:55.932-04:00

Here is a much better source for the information.

http://remnantnewspaper.com/archives/archive-2007-0715-bishop_fellay_on_summorum_pontif.htm

On Mr. Sandborn's last comments.I'm not really sur...

2008-04-09T00:25:42.146-04:00

On Mr. Sandborn's last comments.

I'm not really sure that there's a roadblock there at all. The positions of Rome which he states are not infallible and most of them are not even doctinal in nature, but disciplinary. The Pope's claim that the New Mass is the ordinary form of the Roman Rite is not even a doctrinal statement, not even a non-infallible one; it is only a finding in law, and the Pope can be dead wrong in his interpretations of law.

For the S.S.P.X, the main problem of the N.O.M. is its lack of clarity on the nature of the Sacrifice and the extent to which the New Mass is open to heretical interpretations. There are a few other concerns but this is the big one.

I have reason to believe, as Bishop Fellay has stated, that Pope Benedict XVI has formed a committee to work on a 'project' to fix the New Mass. Abp. Ranjith has denied that there are plans in the works but this is clever side-stepping. Rome never plans things; she works on projects, which are then vetted by various dicasteries. (I know this because I was consulted in this process on one occasion.)

I think that the Pope will alter the New Mass so that it clarifies that the Sacrifice is primarily a Sacrifice of our Lord by our Lord to the Almighty Father, done in an unbloody way to make available to the living and the dead the merits earned by Christ at Calvary; and that it is only secondarily that it is a sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise and only thirdly a joining of our own sacrifices to those of Christ at Calvary. He may also alter the N.O. Confiteor to restore the Indulgentiam (absolution for venial sins) and a petition in both parts of it to our Lady and the saints.

I think that His Holiness will meet enormous opposition if he should try to abolish Eucharistic Prayers. But he might restore the traditional Words of Consecration and make the Memorial Acclamation optional, introduced by a formula such as 'Let us proclaim our faith in Christ'.

More practically, I hope that he will abolish the N.O. Offertory and restore the traditional one. Other changes could be restoration of most of the priest's old gestures and an affirmation that any priest may celebrate versus solem orientem. Next would be a return to kneeling to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.

These sorts of changes would still allow the liberals to avoid an altered Confiteor by using one of the other penitential rites; they could still have their Memorial Acclamation, Eucharistic Prayer Number Two, and the wild and crazy hug of peace. They could also keep their banjos and so on. They might even be allowed, for an intermediate period, to keep their N.O. Offertory *as an option*. Lente, lente: slowly and gradually their options would be reduced and the clown Masses forgotten.

Hence I think that the Pope will traditionalise the New Mass but slowly and, at first, often through the making available of options.

Such changes would remove the Society's objection that the New Mass is 'intrinscially evil', a charge which is very controversial in Anglophone countries because, in English, the term 'evil' always carries subjective connotations which were not intended by the S.S.P.X (or were they?!).

P.K.T.P.

Anon,I do not deny that obedience to the Holy Fath...

2008-04-08T23:12:22.226-04:00

Anon,

I do not deny that obedience to the Holy Father is a Catholic norm. And I was not asserting that the SSPX requires the abolition of the novus ordo mass prior to a regularization.

The SSPX has been clear with Rome that it will not accept the novus ordo mass. Their belief that it should not exist cannot be changed. They would continue to spread this message after they kiss and make up.

Pope BXVI states in his letter to the bishops - "...it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy."

Also... "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."

Also... "There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal."

And finally... "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."

Anon, is it me, or do you see a road block here?

The SSPX will not abide by this. They cannot.

It isn't a matter of its total abolition prior to a reunion. It's a matter of being told to sit down, eat the poisoned crap and tell us how good it is...

Sorry to be crude, but after 40 years of destruction... the political nature of this is getting old.

SS

Dear Mr. Sanborn:I fear that you are coming from t...

2008-04-08T21:04:57.529-04:00

Dear Mr. Sanborn:

I fear that you are coming from the other extreme, opposite to that of these 'conservative' papolaters.

The point about the New Mass being "intrinsically evil" is interesting (and controversial) but I am not aware that the Society has specified that it must be abolished before it will reconcile. To my knowledge, the Society has said that three pre-conditions must be met before it will accept regularisation.

The first is that Rome recognise that every priest in the Latin Church has a right to celebrate the old Mass. The second is that the declarations of excommunication and other penalties be withdrawn. The third is that doctrinal issues be resolved through negotiations. Now, I suppose that you could include the nature of the New Mass under your third point here.

However, it seems to me that obedience to the Holy Father is a moral norm for Catholics. We are not in a cafeteria. Rightful disobedience, therefore, can only exist as a last resort in a state of necessity to preserve the higest laws, to build up the Church and save souls. But it would be possible for the Society to further her mission to save souls without having the New Mass declared to be intrinsically evil as s pre-condition of this.

What I have suggested, to get around all difficulties, is that the Society at least accept a provisional (ad experimentum) jurisdiction during the period of discussions. If Rome would accept this (and I think that she would in a heartbeat), it seems to me that the Society must accept it too. Rome has already offered a permanent structure of this kind. The only reason for making it provisional would be to safeguard the third pre-condition. The third pre-condition would become just a condition.

I am suggesting this not only to build up the Church and show proper respect to the Holy Father but also because it is in the interest of the Society.

Once again, I know a great deal about the statistics of our movement. I would just hate to bore some bloggers about this, so I will skip to the conclusion and then they can ask me to prove my assertions and I will be happy to do so. The 'he and the she of it' is that, should the Society not make an arrangement with Rome over the next few years (and preferably as soon as possible), it is facing decline and then decimation. I just don't think that this will help its mission.

The Society asked for freedom for the old Mass and the Holy Father complied. Now, as a result of this compliance, we are seeing a growth of T.L.M.s that makes even the huge increase of 1988-1993 seem small my comparison. For example, in the last nine months, more every-Sunday Traditional Latin Masses have been approved than were approved for the previous ten years in the U.S.A. It is hard to overestimate the effect of S.P.

In fact, the effect has been so great that it has easily fooled conservative bloggers into thinking that, perhaps, the S.S.P.X was not needed all along. Those prone to papolatry and wild fits of fancy immediately reach the most bizarre conclusions, conclusions which entirely ignore the statistics from the previous four decades.

The S.S.P.X can now do something wonderful, something to parallel what it did with S.P.: it can make a charitable gesture for the whole Church by asking that Rome's offer of an international diocese be conferred not on the Society alone but for all of us. The Society, as a society of apostolic life, would then be a part of this flexible new structure. In order to interest and excite fellow bloggers, I have formulated a canonical solution for this. But I fear that this only bores bloggers here. But I will explain it in my next post if people ask for this.

P.K.T.P.

"All please refrain from polysyllabic words in len...

2008-04-08T20:20:08.377-04:00

"All please refrain from polysyllabic words in lengthy arguments. I passed out twice."

Only twice? Must be nice. (Hey, I made a rhyme. And just in time...)

Anon,Well stated.I differ with you on the "regular...

2008-04-08T17:31:09.703-04:00

Anon,

Well stated.

I differ with you on the "regularization" issue primarily because this currently requires that the SSPX compromise on the issue of the N.O., i.e., that it should not exist, and specifically that it is intrinsically evil...(so I believe that it is for them very specifically an issue of endangering souls) and also the mass is not the only issue at hand.

In all of the comings and goings, the swaying and the swooning, there has been one organization (though fractured at times to the right and left - SSPV and FSSP)that has stayed in one place. That's SSPX.

SSPX would likely resolve to "reunify" (boy I hate that word), but in a very real way it is not the SSPX that must resolve to make a return to something... it is Rome. She must resolve to return to the Catholic Faith in its entirety.

Were the SSPX to "come back" now, who would stand as a beacon for the eternal truth regarding salvation of souls, particularly those that are not Catholic?

How can the SSPX trust Rome at all, when Rome has effectively taken herself out of the equation for non-Catholic souls? And to a large extent Catholic souls.

If the world were inside out, and one place continued to dangle in the proper atmosphere, who is on the outside and the inside? Is this really a case of "one of these things is not like the others"? As I see it, it is the other way round.

To recognize the old mass is normal - not extraordinary, not heroic, not saintly per se. What about the rest? Who stands at the helm if the SSPX comes in out of the rain?

SS

Mr. Sanborn makes good points. He is right that, ...

2008-04-08T16:25:43.556-04:00

Mr. Sanborn makes good points. He is right that, as we now know (cf. S.P., Article 1), the old Mass was never abrogated and therefore never forbidden in principle. It follows logically that all attempts to forbid priests from celebrating the old Mass were unlawful and, as such, abuses of power. In particular, "De Missali Romano" (not to be confused with the apostolic constitution, "Missale Romanum"), 1971, was a nullity ab ovo. It is null and void because it violates the precepts of Moral Law.

One has the right in Moral Law to resist an abuse of power. It follows that those priests who joined the S.S.P.X to protect their rights acted properly; they acted morally.

However, in 2000, the situation changed when Pope John Paul II offered the S.S.P.X priests a way out. At that point, the Society's argument from a state of necessity ceased, and I think that the I.P.B. and the Campos group werre right to accept regularisation.

As regards laics, the situation was a bit different. One has the right but not necessarily an obligation to resist the abuse of power being imposed on someone else. So laics are free to support or not support the S.S.P.X. The Society admits this and has said on many occasions that it does not claim to be the entire Church, only part of it.

When I write that the Society now has an obligation to accept regularisation, I am speaking objectively. It remains possible that it declines to accept regularisation owing to an honest opinion that this would endanger souls. Only God can judge the motives of each Society member. Only God can say if its members are motivated, as one blogger wrote here, out of "pride and vanity".

Still, I think that it would be best both for the Society and for the entire Church if there were now a rapprochement. And I think that the means of achieving this are present. Therefore, let us pray for that.

Notice that I am not the attacker here. I am defending the Society position but I am not a Society supporter and never have been one. I am only trying to be fair and just. It seems to me that some contributors to this blog are determined to argue that S.P. likely would have been published even if the S.S.P.X had never existed, or if it had submitted to Rome from the beginning. That is absurd. The evidence simply does not support this hypothesis; on the contrary, it directly contradicts it.

I don't say that bloggers need support the Society position. But it is another thing entirely to try to remove the credit we all owe the Society for the present conditions. Justice means giving every man his due.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous...Wonderful!!! Well Done!!! Kudos!!!St...

2008-04-08T15:41:17.191-04:00

Anonymous...

Wonderful!!! Well Done!!! Kudos!!!

Steve Sanborn

PS. Perhaps you and I could stray a bit on the fact that there has never been an obligation to say the N.O., while there is an obligation to say and/or assist at mass. While many arguments focus on the rights of traditionals (which I do not disagree with) less focus is placed on the fact that it was the transition to the N.O. that created much of the problem.

Since Lefebvre perceived (and I believe correctly) that moving to the N.O. would have been sinful... he could not say it. One man's humble submission is another man's path to Hell.

What say you? ...and I can take or leave the articles in your sentences...

Dear Mr. Archbold:To put it more simply: no S.S.P....

2008-04-08T15:25:59.793-04:00

Dear Mr. Archbold:

To put it more simply: no S.S.P.X, no 1988 pope letter. No 1988 pope letter, no tenfold increase from 7 to 70 dioceses with old Mass every Sunday in U.S.A. and same stuff in other places. No big increase from 1988 to 1993, no old Mass movement blessed by pope. No old Mass movement blessed by pope, no pleas for S.P. with Pope who prefers N.O.M. with smells and bells. No pleas for S.P. but pleas againt it from bishops everywhere, no S.P.

As a result, no S.S.P.X., no nothin'. I've tried to keep the syllable count down. I hope that everyone gets it now. Sorry for many syllables. I teach at University. I no teach at kindergarten (whoops, too many syllables in last word).

Take this lightly, Mr. Archbold. Lighten up.

P.K.T.P.

All please refrain from polysyllabic words in leng...

2008-04-08T15:10:50.049-04:00

All please refrain from polysyllabic words in lengthy arguments. I passed out twice.

Mr. David Alexander writes:"But your focus should ...

2008-04-08T15:00:40.139-04:00

Mr. David Alexander writes:

"But your focus should be on the central point that Mr Archbold is making, without going off on a million tangents."

I did not go off on any tangents. All my points were included as a thorough support to a counter-argument; namely, that, without the S.S.P.X, we would not even have a movement. If we would not even have a regulaised movement without the S.S.P.X, it makes no sense to speculate how well our non-existent movement would have fared had the S.S.P.X never existed.

To reiterate, but without repeating the details, the 1984 Indult and, in particular the 1988 E.D. which made our movement viable, both came as a result of S.S.P.X activity; so did the Campos arrangement, the thirty-some approved traditionalists societies and orders, and S.P.

Benedict XVI has never preferred the 1962 Missal. What he clearly prefers is a traditionalised N.O.M. So, to paraphrase Mr. Archbold, had the Society submitted from the outset, the most we'd have today would be that. We'd presumably have the Adoremus Mass or not even that. The Pope would not have regularised the 1962 Missal had there not already been thousands of regularised traditionalists pining for this and/or a desire to regularise the S.S.P.X.

I am asking that we be fair. We don't need to agree with the S.S.P.X position. But it is unfair not to acknowledge that, without the S.S.P.X, there would be no traditionalist movement today and no S.P. It is absurd to suggest that the Pope would have issued S.P. one fine spring day when the spirit moved him. He had to get S.P. through a hostile curia and past hostile bishops. They are still hostile. Today, it is widely reported that the new traditionalist chaplaincy for Maine will have to ante up U.S. $72,000 a year to pay for the chaplain's expenses and even to rent sacred places.

P.K.T.P.

On David Alexander's last post:Dear Mr. Alexander:...

2008-04-08T14:49:08.086-04:00

On David Alexander's last post:

Dear Mr. Alexander: if I have confused you without another blogger here, I apologise without reserve. However, any confusion was not caused by 'pontificating' but simply by a misreading of labels. Were you not the first respondent on this topic, who wrote the following?:

"Without Martin Luther, we wouldn't have had Trent". Probably true enough, but that does not mean that the Reformation was a good thing.

Forceful assertion of our canonical rights is one thing, disobedience to the Holy Father is quite enother.

How could the Holy Spirit be supporting a movement that has led to several sedevacantist movements such as the SSPV? No one remains in communion with the Church unless sustained by the Holy Spirit. Many of us have remained in full communion with the Holy Father and numerous ancient, orthodox Eastern churches, we have got our Mass back, and IMHO, God is working through Benedict XVI to restore the Church.

The Lefebvrites are Anglicans in disguise - they pick and chose out of pride and vanity.

"Then you wrote this unfair statement: 'The Lefebv...

2008-04-08T14:07:55.477-04:00

"Then you wrote this unfair statement: 'The Lefebvrites are Anglicans in disguise - they pick and chose out of pride and vanity.'"

No, I didn't. Nor did I write anything about sedevacantism, or the SSPX vis a vis the SSPV. I did refer to behavior resembling a cult in some instances, and the need for humility, concessions having been made to them.

This is what happens in a lop-sided conversation. One side is so busy pontificating that he loses track of those to whom he is pontificating. Now, you've got some good stuff in your comments, I'm not too proud to concede that, sir. The statistical study is good. But your focus should be on the central point that Mr Archbold is making, without going off on a million tangents.

Confine yourself. Be brief. Be very very brief. And write as if you are starting anew. I've read the same $#!† from you at least half a dozen times already.

THAT is what sucks the joy out of this. Winning and losing is irrelevant. A mutual seeking of the Truth is relevant. At least when I lose, I learn something.