12:55
Gloria.tv
1339.3K

How far have we come in the negotiations with the Society of St. Pius X.?

Interview with the secretary oft the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei prelate Guido Pozzo concerning the negotiations with the Fraternity of St. Pius X. and the Old Mass.
tradne13838
I am discerning a vocation with the Society of Saint Pius X, so I'll be watching these events with great interest.
ACLumsden
@SBpfu - Indeed! The Benedictines at Norcia are a sterling example of the what Sumorum Pontificum meant; the coexistance of the two Forms of Holy Mass. In the French Solesmes Congregation there is also such a thing, but no a permanent fixture; Liguge and Kergonan would have Missa ad orientem (OF) in Latin 'on occasion' and the 1962 Mass (EF) on occasion as well, e.g. Mass of Low Sunday. …More
@SBpfu - Indeed! The Benedictines at Norcia are a sterling example of the what Sumorum Pontificum meant; the coexistance of the two Forms of Holy Mass. In the French Solesmes Congregation there is also such a thing, but no a permanent fixture; Liguge and Kergonan would have Missa ad orientem (OF) in Latin 'on occasion' and the 1962 Mass (EF) on occasion as well, e.g. Mass of Low Sunday. Nevertheless, Norica seems to have the most stable example of the two Forms, beautifully executed for the Church to see.
ACLumsden
@SBpfu - Hi .... Quite, many choose not to READ the Holy Father's writings and are stuck in anachronistic writings which, no doubt, one discovers to be pre-Vat.II and circumstance-conditioned. However, there are those who just think with a paucity of knowledge about the subject. Thanks for educating us chum.
holyrope 3
@REVTHREEVS21.... What do you think can be done with the many priests, pastors and even bishops who try to refuse someone communion because they are kneeling, or because they wish to receive on the tongue? What should be done with the pastors who tell the faithful (including 1st communicants) that there is only one way to receive, and its in the hands while standing? What should be done with …More
@REVTHREEVS21.... What do you think can be done with the many priests, pastors and even bishops who try to refuse someone communion because they are kneeling, or because they wish to receive on the tongue? What should be done with the pastors who tell the faithful (including 1st communicants) that there is only one way to receive, and its in the hands while standing? What should be done with priests who either drop the Consecrated HOST or sees a lay distributor drop IT and does Nothing to clean the area where the HOST fell while allowing the people to walk right over the area? And what should be done to the priests, pastors and bishops who tell the faithful they Must STAND during the Consecration? What do you do when a priest tells you he will do things HIS way because we live in America and not in Rome?What should catholics do when liberal "nuns" are putting in margarine and or baking powder to make the hosts, causing for an invalid mass, and people believing they are receiving Our Lord?? And these disobedient renegades are "in communion" with Rome?? The FSSP was formed by the SSPX as was the Institute of the Good Shepherd, Benedictines from New Mexico, etc. etc. And all that was mentioned in the above you would never hear nor see happen at any SSPX church. They have valid Masses and continue to hold onto the tradition of our Catholic faith, unlike the Many modernist, pro homosexual, pro married priests, pro abortion clergy who remain "in union".

www.latinmasstimes.com
REVTHREEVS21

First Lefebvre was excommunicated not for his, in my opinion, odd ideas on tradition nor for his reasonable suggestions on other theological issues but for ordaining Bishops without Vatican approval.
The situation was not grave. First the Novus Ordo is valid and hence even if Rome had moved to completely ban the Tridentine Mass it would not have been a grave problem.
But …More

First Lefebvre was excommunicated not for his, in my opinion, odd ideas on tradition nor for his reasonable suggestions on other theological issues but for ordaining Bishops without Vatican approval.
The situation was not grave. First the Novus Ordo is valid and hence even if Rome had moved to completely ban the Tridentine Mass it would not have been a grave problem.
But even if you disagree with that there still was not a grave situation. The Vatican had made it clear it wasn't going to do anything against Lefbvre if he didn't ordain Bishops. Hence the Latin Mass wouldn't have disappeared. In fact the Vatican had allowed Lefebvre to ordain a Bishop if he agreed to the compromise which he first did then changed his mind on.
Further it's clear that JPII was fully willing to support the Tridentine Mass, just not Lefebvres incorrect interpretation of "Tradition". This was clearly demonstrated by the Popes support for the FSSP and by his indult on the saying of the Latin Mass. You can't blame JPII that many Bishops refused to carry out the indult as it was intended.
The SSPX worship the TLM not Jesus Christ if they say that the disappearance of the Tridentine Rite was a grave crisis while there were 19 other valid rites.
The SSPX has a fixation on certain aspects of Tradition but they reject all parts of Tradition that relate to obedience.
Every argument the SSPX puts forth could be invoked by Martin Luther. Was he right too? At what point should any sane person believe Lefebvre over 5 Popes, the worlds Cardinals, and >95% of all Bishops, >99% of all Catholic lay people, and >90% of all Catholic priests? Or did Jesus lie?
Compare Martin Luther to Lefebvre
According to Martin Luther, "These [church laws] hold good only so long as they are not injurious to Christianity and the laws of God. Therefore, if the Pope deserves punishment, these laws cease to bind us, since Christendom would suffer."
According to Marcel Lefebvre, "In the Church there is no law or jurisdiction which can impose on a Christian a diminution of his faith. All the faithful can and should resist whatever interferes with their faith.... If they are forced with an order putting their faith in danger of corruption, there is an overriding duty to disobey."
Lefebvre and the SSPX are schismatics who reject the Church founded by Christ. Like the Old Catholic Church or any other Protestant group they decided that they are more Catholic than the Pope. That God has abandoned His Church and they are the only good ones left.
Yet is the SSPX good? Hardly.
The SSPX is no better than those priests who alter the Mass in violation of the Rubrics. Both believe that they own the right to define what Mass Catholic hear. But neither group does.
I cannot express in words the horror I feel when someone says that the Tridentine Rite has some mystic wonderfulness. I've gone to many Tridentine Rite Masses. they have a certain atmosphere but they essentially disassociate the laity from the Mass, hence the large number of people praying rosaries during Mass. The TLM is fine for some people but not most.
The Novus Ordo brings Christ to us and is a far better vehicle for communicating Christ to the vast majority of modern men and women than the TLM. If any significant fraction of Catholics really liked the TLM that much we'd see a lot more Latin Masses being said.
You condemn the FSSP because they don't have a theology. Since when does any order in the Church have the right to its own theology? That's why the SSPX is not Catholic, it has it's own home brewed theology which is falsely claimed to be based on tradition.
Show me one thing in the Novus Ordo that is heretical. Just one. So far no traditionalist has been able to do that. They just mutter about how this or that could be construed in a heterodox manner.
But to condemn the Mass because it can be misinterpreted is both a violation of a condemnation held by Vatican I but is also grounds for condemning the Bible. For do not Protestants constantly misinterpret the Bible?
So show me one thing in the new Mass that is wrong as opposed to just not being to the liking of people who are opposed to any sort of change.
I can show you things that are gravely wrong with the SSPX.
They urge people to break the first commandment by not attending Masses that even the SSPX admit are valid.
They disobey the Pope on non-theological issues.
They divide the Body of Christ through their schism.
Lefebvre called Pope John Paul II the anti-Christ. Clearly blasphemy since it implies that Jesus lied about His Church.
One of their Bishops denies the Holocaust occurred. And he's still a Bishop in good standing.
The SSPX reject the right of people to choose their own faith.
The SSPX reject the thought of reaching out to non-Catholics as a first step to converting them.
The SSPX says that the Church is not the Church but a new religion and that 1,000,000,000 Catholics are in error and only the SSPX are true.
To join the SSPX is to follow in the footsteps of Martin Luther and to reject the Church founded by Jesus.
There was no reason to ordain Bishops and there was no reason to be excommunicated but Lefebvre did both.
Lefbvre split the Body of Christ. He was no saint for what saint would call the Pope the anti-Christ?
Look at Padre Pio. Then look at Lefebvre. Then tell me that Lefebvre was a saint.
REVTHREEVS21
“Traditionalists”: It’s not about the Latin Mass

When you listen to “Traditionalists” they always talk about the Latin Mass and how horrible the Ordinary Form(OF) is and how wonderful the Extraordinary Form(EF) is.

They even justify attending illicit Masses and disobeying the Pope because the Latin Mass, more properly the EF, must be preserved!

That’s hokum of course. Because if their beef …More
“Traditionalists”: It’s not about the Latin Mass

When you listen to “Traditionalists” they always talk about the Latin Mass and how horrible the Ordinary Form(OF) is and how wonderful the Extraordinary Form(EF) is.

They even justify attending illicit Masses and disobeying the Pope because the Latin Mass, more properly the EF, must be preserved!

That’s hokum of course. Because if their beef with the Church was about the EF they’d have all come home by now. There are >400 approved Latin Masses each Sunday in America. And with the new rules from Pope Benedict any priest who wants to can say the Latin Mass. If the Mass is the issue there is no reason for any Priest to leave the Church since he can say the EF as much as he wants.

If the SSPX were being schismatic just because of the Latin Mass they’d come home today since they, like the FSSP and other order such as the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius, could celebrate the EF to their hearts content. More importantly such a move would stop all those who attend the SSPX Masses from the pains of conscience associated with attending illicit services. If the SSPX truly cared about their flock and their only concern was the EF they’d be racing home to Rome. But they aren’t.

It’s further clear that the SSPX didn’t split with Rome over the Latin Mass since clearly Rome had no problem with the Latin Mass.

When the SSPX priests who didn’t want to abandon the Church with Lefebvre asked Rome for a home they were given an order and the authorization to say the Latin Mass whenever they wanted to.

Blessed Pope John Paul II was no enemy of the EF. And there was no need to ordain Bishops to keep the EF going when the Pope liked the EF so much he issued an order to all of the worlds Bishops to make EF readily available.

But the SSPX hasn’t come back and the “Traditionalists” are still complaining about how horrible the Church is.In reality the “Traditionalists” disagree with the Church founded by Jesus Christ on doctrinal grounds. That is they espouse beliefs inconsistent with the Catholic Church. Or at least beliefs they feel are incompatible with the Church headed by the Vicar of Christ.

Like the gnostics “Traditionalists” claim secret knowledge and special wisdom that makes “Traditionalists” more capable than we mundane Catholics, or the Pope, of seeing the Truth. Like Martin Luther “Traditionalists” believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding them and as such they need not be bothered by the fact that they are disagreeing with multiple Popes, Church Councils, and the vast majority of Bishops, Cardinals, and Priests. Obedience to the Pope and deference to the unified teaching of the Church are not part of “Traditionalists” tradition.

When cornered they admit that nothing in Vatican II or in the proclamations of any of the Popes is heretical or in disagreement with Dogma. But they talk about how modernism has slyly managed to write perfectly orthodox things that are secretly reeking of error.

Just like the Bible. After all have not the the Protestants used the, presumably Orthodox, words of the Bible to justify their heresies?

If one were to take the “Traditionalists” reasoning and apply it to the Bible one would have to declare the Bible to be written by modernist heretics. After all why else could so many people read so much error into the Bible? How could God have written something with so many evil subtexts?

The truth of course is that neither the Bible nor VII are in any way, obvious or hidden, in opposition to Christ’s Truth. Rather when men go looking to justify what they want to believe they can twist any words, even those of God Himself, to their ends.

If men can twist God’s word why should it surprise anyone that a “Traditionalist” sure he’s going to find error can go through the words of Vatican II, written by men, and find modernism? One thing people are good at and that is finding what they expect to find when reading something someone else wrote.

But why are “Traditionalists” so hell bent on finding problems with the Church?

For some it’s the fact that modernists in the Church have done so many bad things that it appears the Church itself is at fault. But when confronted with the fact that what the modernists have done they have done in direct opposition to the teachings and commands of the Popes and the words of Vatican II these “Traditionalists” simply continue to attack the Pope. It is as though St. Athanasius spent his time attacking Pope Liberius rather than the Arians.

The fact that Popes have not cracked down on modernists as much as many would like means at worst that the Popes have been weak not that they are in error. If you read the words of the Popes you’ll find no real encouragement for modernism unless, like a Protestant prooftexting the Bible, you pick a snippet here or there and ignore everything else.

The lack of evidence of Papal perfidy is so profound that “Traditionalists” are forced to resort to bizarre arguments. The Pope kissed a Koran! Aha! But then when confronted with that same Pope in book condemning Islam they just switch topics.

Do not confuse the sins of Catholics with errors in the Church. The Church will always be true and a rock on which we can shelter in even the most terrible storm. Rather take your energy and use it to support the Church against the modernist enemies within. Do not take to the lifeboats and leave the Church foundering. God gave you your talents to support His Church not to wander off and attack it from without.

Others are just the sort of people who cannot abide change. The sudden changes in the Church after the council upset them so much that they cannot distinguish between the good and the bad. They convert their feelings of unease to condemnation of the OF.

When confronted they cannot really explain why the OF is evil but they fall back on arguments that the Latin Mass is magical and better than all the other rites of the Church.

You can tell this because when someone thinks something is truly bad they can usually tell you why in a heartbeat. Nazism is wrong because it kills Jews. Racism is wrong because it oppresses the innocent. Abortion is wrong because it kills an innocent child.

Yet when you ask a “Traditionalist” what’s wrong with the new Mass they cannot point to any specific thing. They mutter generalities, it’s not a sacrifice--even though the word sacrifice is everywhere in the word of the OF--, or they say that it should never have been changed--Quo Primum!, even though Church law has always stated that one Pope cannot bind another Pope on matters of discipline and even though the EF has been changed many times.

It’s clear that in truth the problem with the OF is that “Traditionalists” don’t like it. It’s a matter of taste, nothing more.

That doesn’t mean that some criticisms of the OF aren’t perfectly valid, like the OF itself, but that they do not rise to the level of justifying mass disobedience.

Interestingly enough if the “Traditionalists” were right and the EF is somehow better than all other Masses then Pope Pius V who instituted that Mass was either evil or a failure. For when he promulgated what is now the EF in 1571 he allowed other rites to continue. If the EF was somehow perfect or wonderful Pope Pius V must have been either evil, intentionally depriving those who celebrated other rites of the glory of the EF, or a failure, by not working hard enough to get those poor fools to accept the perfect Mass.

And all the Popes since then have been similarly evil or failures, including St. Pope Pius X. By the way those Popes didn’t think the EF was perfect since at three of them made such major changes to the EF as established by Pope Pius V that they required Papal Bulls to promulgate the changes.

But to be honest one must admit that the OF is not perfect either. Sadly “Traditionalists” seem unwilling to work constructively in the Church to correct liturgical abuses, they seem unaware that most of the things in the OF they don’t like--such as liturgical dance, clown Masses etc--are violations of the rules for the Mass defined by Pope Paul VI, and ensure that the full rubrics, which by the way include the use of Latin, are both enforced and enhanced.

Others, a tiny minority hopefully, reject the Church because it does not support their hatred of Jews and non-Catholics. To hear “Catholics” righteously announce that non-Catholics are all going to Hell no matter how good they are brings a great sadness to all true Catholics.

Similarly when an SSPX Bishop can deny the Holocaust one has to wonder if his attachment to the “old” Church is not at least partially based on the anti-Semitism that some used to hold, anti-Semitism that was always condemned by the Church and the Popes however.

Irrespective of what has occurred in the past no person can any longer reject God’s Church because of the EF. The EF is welcomed by the Church. If that is your only concern come home to Christ.

Sadly many “Traditionalists” are infected with the same disease that Protestants have. A strong dislike of Church authority.

Why else would “Traditionalists” believe suspended priests over Sr. Lucia about the consecration of Russia? Why else would they spin convoluted theories about how Cardinal Ottaviani didn’t really retract his concerns about the OF after he read the final Missal and talked to the Pope? Or who who has love for the Papacy founded by Jesus would claim that Pope Paul VI was kidnapped, tortured, murdered and secretly replaced because he changed his mind about the OF he worked so hard to bring about?

If you think the comparison with Protestants is too much know this I’ve had to dispute with many Protestants using arguments off of “Traditionalists” web pages.

When “Traditionalists” attack the modern Popes they are walking in lock step with Protestants.

It is time for honesty. Modern “Traditionalists” can no longer hide behind the supposed problems of the OF. They must either return home to the Church founded by Jesus or admit to themselves that it is not the Mass but the teachings of the Church they cannot abide.
ACLumsden
@Jitpring - Quite!
holyrope 3
@Jitpring..."Doctrine is never to be compromised."
Jitpring
Again and again, Bishop Fellay and others of the SSPX have stressed that there are no "negotiations" going on. In other words, it's not a matter of reaching doctrinal compromise. There are discussions happening, not negotiations. Doctrine is never to be compromised.
holyrope 3
Hello Dear Father Worthley!
A good video!
holyrope 3
Father is another witness of the disobedience of those clergy who have and still do create the new mass according to their own desires and "creativity".

May the Church be once again raised up by a Holy Clergy who will defend, protect and live out the True Catholic faith. A clergy who will love the traditions of Holy Mother Church and live it through their example.

www.latinmasstime…More
Father is another witness of the disobedience of those clergy who have and still do create the new mass according to their own desires and "creativity".

May the Church be once again raised up by a Holy Clergy who will defend, protect and live out the True Catholic faith. A clergy who will love the traditions of Holy Mother Church and live it through their example.

www.latinmasstimes.com
ACLumsden
This is just wonderful - a beautifully balanced view and discussion of the whole liturgical crisis in the current Lex Credendi-Lex Orandi praxis.

However, I kept seeing that the English questions refering to the Extraordinary Form of Holy Mass in the Roman Rite, said "Latin Mass". I wish to point out,cvm magnis viribvs,that the Roman Rite, according to Sacrosanctvm Concilivm (Vat.II) and Pope …More
This is just wonderful - a beautifully balanced view and discussion of the whole liturgical crisis in the current Lex Credendi-Lex Orandi praxis.

However, I kept seeing that the English questions refering to the Extraordinary Form of Holy Mass in the Roman Rite, said "Latin Mass". I wish to point out,cvm magnis viribvs,that the Roman Rite, according to Sacrosanctvm Concilivm (Vat.II) and Pope Ben. XVI's apostolic exhortationSacramentvm Caritatis,is a Latin language Liturgy. The only difference is that the Ordinary Form of Holy Mass is allowed to be translated into the vernacular of each country. BUT! It remains in Latin.

Therefore, it is quite misleading to think, say or even infer the following: that the Ordinary Form of Holy Mass is NOT in Latin, but the Extraordianry Form is in Latin, therefore we call the Extraordinary Form of Holy Mass the "Latin Mass" - as opposed to the Ordinary Form of Holy Mass "vernacular Mass". This is quite erroneous indeed!