Sspx

[quote=MichCath]There is an SSPX chapel reasonably close to where I live.

It’s close enough that it’s in our phone book. My problem is that they advertise themselves as a regular Catholic Church and call out the fact that they have a “Traditional Latin Mass” in the phone book.

That bothers me. The ad makes no mention of SSPX.

Unless you already know what SSPX is and that that is an SSPX chapel, you’d have no clue.

Any unsuspecting individual would open up the phone book and see “so and so Catholic Church-Traditional Latin Mass”

I guess there’s nothing I can do, but what do you all think of this?
[/quote]

I recommend that you have your parish and diocese make clear that they are not in full communion with the Catholic Church. They can do this in their Diocesan newspaper and parish bulletins.

You might consider including the following…

The Pontifical Congregation of Bishops, has stated:

Participation in their [Society of St. Pius X (SSPX)] services is objectively illicit because they are not performed in full communion with the Church, and because they are a source of grave scandal and division in the ecclesial community. (Response to Letter from the Very Rev. Norbert Brunner, Bishop of Sion, Switzerland, to the Prefect for the Congregation of Bishops, requesting clarifications regarding status of the followers of Monsignor Lefebvre, response dated October 31, 1996)

**"*The priests and faithful are warned ****not to support the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur ipso facto the very grave penalty of *excommunication. (From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.)

[quote=StMarkEofE]What gets me is that prior to VatII this Latin Mass was fully legitimate, then pretty much the next thing you know it isnt. What makes the Novus Ordum licit and the Latin Mass illicit? What changed?
[/quote]

What changed is the form of the Mass, which is a discipline.

The Latin Mass is still legitimate and licit when done according to the discipline of the Church.

Before Trent the Missals of each diocese where legitimate and licit then after Trent they no longer were, only the Missal of Rome was. What changed there?

[quote=ByzCath]What changed is the form of the Mass, which is a discipline.

The Latin Mass is still legitimate and licit when done according to the discipline of the Church.
[/quote]

Well I personally know for a fact that Latin Masses were forbidden in our diocese after VatII and that only the NO was to be celebrated. So at this time it was Illegitamate to attend or celebrate a Latin Mass. In fact even mentioning the Latin Mass would get your stares of puzzlement, and questions as to why do you want go back to something so anachronistic as the “old” Mass. It was ONLY after severe pressure was put upon the Vatican by a lot of traditionalists that the Vatican loosened their rules regarding the Latin Mass. If it wasnt for these groups the Latin Mass would only exist in history books.

I sort of covered it. The main answer is…

The Church has the right and power to change its disciplines.

It has done it in the past and it will continue to do so as it finds it necessary.

I played lawyer just a little bit in describing the clergy/religious as excommunicated. The official Vatican ruling is that anyone who formally adhereres" to SSPX carries the penalty of excommunication.

However, I would say that being a priest, deacon, nun, religious brother, or teacher for SSPX would be “formal adherence.”

From the Vatican Website:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law

Here, JPII does refer to SSPX as “the schism,” and elsewhere in the document calls it a “schismatic act.”

The full document is available at the link.

I do hope that someday, SSPX may be able to re-enter the Catholic Church fully.

I was the unsuspecting Catholic that looked in a phone book and thought, “Oh, wow a Latin Mass. Wouldn’t that be nice for my first Christmas as a Catholic.” Wrong! While I wasn’t at the specific church mentioned here it was a similar group and let me tell you I had to use all of my self-control to keep from calling them a bunch of heathens in the middle of the homily and storming out. The entire Christmas homily was about how evil the Pope (Yes, our beloved JPII) was and how the Vatican II was from the devil. What a great Christmas Homily. :eek: As it was I just held my tounge and walked out as calmly as I could muster at the first chance I got. I then sat in the car and cried because I was so shocked, angry, confused and sad that anyone who could spew such anti-catholic hatred could dare advertise that they were Catholic. After the initial shock I prayed for them all and of course I went to a real Mass for Christmas. At a regular Bonafide Roman Catholic Church. Later on when I told one of my friends about it they said, “Oh yeah, that church- they’ve been excommunicated.” There aren’t any sanctioned Latin Masses within 100 miles of where I am so I probably won’t be attending one anytime soon. Although I still think a real Latin Mass might be nice to participatein, I have no desire to ever go to a fake mass again.

[quote=ByzCath]What changed is the form of the Mass, which is a discipline.?
[/quote]

It looks like they changed an essential part of the Mass, which is known as the Consecration of the Wine. Before, it used to be taught that the Blood of Christ was shed for many, and this was enforced by the Council of Trent. however, in the New Mass, they changed the doctrine on that and they now say that the Blood of Christ was shed for all.
This is not a matter of discipline, but an essential change in doctrine.

[quote=Kirane]It looks like they changed an essential part of the Mass, which is known as the Consecration of the Wine. Before, it used to be taught that the Blood of Christ was shed for many, and this was enforced by the Council of Trent. however, in the New Mass, they changed the doctrine on that and they now say that the Blood of Christ was shed for all.
This is not a matter of discipline, but an essential change in doctrine.
[/quote]

Incorrect. I recommend you study the issue further.

See here: Concerning the words “pro multis” - did Jesus shed his blood for all or for many? - View

[quote=itsjustdave1988]Incorrect.
[/quote]

I don;t see how anyone can say incorrect. According to the catechism of the Council of Trent, the correct wording should be that the Blood of Christ was shed for many. After Vatican II, in the USA the wording was essentially changed to use the phrase that the Blood of Christ was shed for all. This is not a disciplinary change. It has nothing to do with discipline. It has to do with whether the Blood of Christ was shed for many or for all. This looks like an essential change in Catholic doctrine for the USA. (Many other countries use the older phrase, but in the USA they have changed the Catholic doctrine on the issue.)Also it shows that Catholicism is not consistent in its teachings as they vary from one country to the next so that Catholics have to adjust to what they beleive from place to place. In the USa you have to say that the Blood of Christ was shed for all, but in some European countries you say that the Blood of Christ was shed for many.
As another example of this, in the Roman Mass they use the phrase filioque, but in the Catholic Byzantine Mass they say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. So if you are in the Ukraine, and attend a Byzantine Ukranian Catholic Mass, you say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but if you are in the USA and attend a Roman Catholic Mass, then you say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
It shows that Catholicism is always changing its teaching according to its policy of development of doctrine.

Incorrect on two points.

It is called the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom or just the Divine Liturgy for short, there is no such thing as a Byzantine Mass.

Also, it depends on where you attend the Divine Liturgy as to what you will here. There are many Byzantine (Ruthenian) Cahtolic parishes and many Ukrainian Greek Catholic parishes you will hear the filioque in the Creed.

But as with the pro multis issue. Both phrases are saying the same thing.

No dogma has changed.

[quote=ByzCath] There are many Byzantine (Ruthenian) Cahtolic parishes and many Ukrainian Greek Catholic parishes you will hear the filioque in the Creed.
[/quote]

But is this true in all Ruthenian Catholic Churches or in many Ruthenian Catholic Churches? Many Eastern Catholic Churches say the filioque, but not all Eastern Catholics say the filioque. Many and all do not mean the same thing. So in some Catholic Churches they beleive that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. But in other Catholic Churches, Catholics say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. There is no consistency as it varies from one Church to another.

[quote=ByzCath]But as with the pro multis issue. Both phrases are saying the same thing.
.
[/quote]

This may be what is taught now, but it was not the teaching at the time of the Council of Trent as the Catechism of the Council of Trent says differently. so it is another essential change in Catholic doctrine, according to the Roman Catholic theory of “development of doctrine” which is just another way of saying that Catholic teaching can change from one place or time to another.

[quote=Kirane]But is this true in all Ruthenian Catholic Churches or in many Ruthenian Catholic Churches? Many Eastern Catholic Churches say the filioque, but not all Eastern Catholics say the filioque. Many and all do not mean the same thing. So in some Catholic Churches they beleive that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. But in other Catholic Churches, Catholics say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. There is no consistency as it varies from one Church to another.
[/quote]

You are right, many and all are not the same thing but in your post you implied that all Byzantine Catholic Churches have removed the filioque from the Liturgy, I was informing you that this is not ture.

As for the meaning of it, in essence we are saying the same thing as the thought behind what is being said is the same.

I suggest that you read this document, : A Church-Dividing Issue?Filioque An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation Saint Paul’s College, Washington, DC October 25, 2003.

Becuase, otherwise, you are saying that the Byzantine Churches are split in their beliefs.

[quote=Kirane]This may be what is taught now, but it was not the teaching at the time of the Council of Trent as the Catechism of the Council of Trent says differently. so it is another essential change in Catholic doctrine, according to the Roman Catholic theory of “development of doctrine” which is just another way of saying that Catholic teaching can change from one place or time to another.
[/quote]

Please provide the citiations from the Council of Trent and the Catechism of Trent so that I can go read it for myself in context.

Also, doctrine can change, it is dogma that can not change.

[quote=Kirane]I don;t see how anyone can say incorrect. According to the catechism of the Council of Trent, the correct wording should be that the Blood of Christ was shed for many.

[/quote]

Yes, but before the Tridentine formula was ever used by the Latin Rite, according to St. Hypollytus (3rd century), “pro multis” was omitted altogether. Thus, it is not an essensial element of the “form” of the Sacrament. So, even if it were omitted altogether, it would still be a valid Sacrament.

After Vatican II, in the USA the wording was essentially changed to use the phrase that the Blood of Christ was shed for all.

This English translation was approved by the Holy See.

The Roman Catechism is an Acta Apostolicae Sedis which has no more authority than the Acta Apostolicae Sedis which answered the “pro multis” question in 1974. Observe,

The Holy See examines the translation of a sacramental form into the vernacular and, when it judges that the translation rightly expresses the meaning intended by the Church, approves and confirms the translation. In so doing the Holy See is stipulating that the meaning of the translation is to be understood in accord with the mind of the Church as expressed by the original Latin text” (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Instauratio liturgica, 25 January 1974, in AAS 66 [1974], p. 661 - English translation in ICEL: Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979 [The Liturgical Press: Collegeville, Minnesota, 1982], p. 299).

I agree that “for many” ought to be the translation, for it better expresses the original Latin text. However, the Church can in no way accept your proposition, already condemned by Pius VI (Auctorem Fidei, 78 [1794]), that what she has officially established as approved ecclesiastical discipline is either harmful or dangerous to the faithful. You can disagree that such a translation is prudent. But when you claim that it renders the Mass invalid, you assert a condemned Jansenist proposition.

This is not a disciplinary change.

It is certainly not a doctrinal change. The Holy See asserts the English translation is to be understood in accord with the Latin editio typica, which says “pro multis.” It is to be understood in that sense. Those like you that erroneously understand it in a different sense do so contrary to the mind of the Church.

It has nothing to do with discipline. It has to do with whether the Blood of Christ was shed for many or for all.

The atonement of Christ was sufficient for all and efficacious for many. You erroneously read into the English translation a change in doctrine that does not exist according to the Divinely ordained authority responsible for Catholic doctrine.

Furthermore, the various liturgies present within the Eastern Rite are in accord with the most ancient creed in the Greek, but neither do they deny the doctrine as taught by the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Again, you make the ERROR of presuming to speak for the Church in what it intends by her own liturgy, yet you do not have that authority.

For a very thorough treatment of the arguments often employed contrary to the judgment of the authentic magisterium on this matter, see the following article:

THE SACRAMENTAL VALIDITY OF "FOR YOU AND FOR ALL"
by Fr. John F. McCarthy, J.C.D., S.T.D.
rtforum.org/lt/lt89.html

“Throughout the history of the Church, there have been at least 89 variations of the formula of consecration approved by the Church (see Likoudis and Whitehead, The Pope, the Council, and the Mass, 109). ***Many of these entirely exclude the phrase in question. ***For example, the canon of Hippolytus, which dates back to the beginning of the third century, gives the following as the words of consecration for the cup: “And likewise, taking the cup, he said: ‘This is my Blood, which is shed for you. When you do this, make memory of me.’” More to the point, ***St. Paul himself omits the phrase and gives the words of consecration as: “In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me’” (1 Cor. 11:25). ******” ***(Jason Evert, *Catholic Answers Q&A *
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9812qq.asp)

If it were an essential part of the Mass, how come the formula used by the Church in the 3rd century excluded it? Are you trying to tell us that the Mass was invalid until the Tridentine formula was established? That’s absurd.

[quote=itsjustdave1988]If it were an essential part of the Mass, how come the formula used by the Church in the 3rd century excluded it? Are you trying to tell us that the Mass was invalid until the Tridentine formula was established? That’s absurd.
[/quote]

it shows that the Catholic Church changes its doctrines according to the theology of development of doctrine. I did not say anything one way or another about validity. What I said was that the Council of Trent in its catechism supports the doctrine that the Blood of Christ was shed for many. After the Vatican II Council, in the USA, in the Mass of Pope Paul in English, Catholics read that the Blood of Christ was shed for all. however, in some other Liturgies, for example of the Eastern rite, Catholics read that the Blood of Christ was shed for many. Many and all are not the same thing. For example, in many Ruthenian Catholic Churches the filioque is said, however, it is not true that in all Ruthenian Churches the filioque is said. This points to another essential difference in Catholic doctrine and teaching depending on which Catholic Church you find yourself in.

[quote=Kirane]it shows that the Catholic Church changes its doctrines according to the theology of development of doctrine. I did not say anything one way or another about validity. What I said was that the Council of Trent in its catechism supports the doctrine that the Blood of Christ was shed for many. After the Vatican II Council, in the USA, in the Mass of Pope Paul in English, Catholics read that the Blood of Christ was shed for all. however, in some other Liturgies, for example of the Eastern rite, Catholics read that the Blood of Christ was shed for many. Many and all are not the same thing. For example, in many Ruthenian Catholic Churches the filioque is said, however, it is not true that in all Ruthenian Churches the filioque is said. This points to another essential difference in Catholic doctrine and teaching depending on which Catholic Church you find yourself in.
[/quote]

Not so. I think it is your understanding that is off on this.

But then… you aren’t Catholic as you list yourself as “other” in your profile so I would not expect you to understand this nuance.

[quote=Kirane]…Council of Trent in its catechism supports the doctrine that the Blood of Christ was shed for many.

[/quote]

Because it was. For many, efficaciously.

After the Vatican II Council… the Blood of Christ was shed for all.

Because it was. For all, sufficiently.

The doctrine before Trent and after Vatican II remains the same: Christ died for many efficaciously and for all sufficiently.

You are comparing apples and oranges. However, it seems you aren’t even motivated enough to read more about it, as this is thoroughly explained in the links I’ve already provided to you.

If you choose ignorance, I can’t help you.

[quote=mike182d]A group that intentionally operates by means of deception to win supporters is clearly in heresy.
[/quote]

Equally helpful would be for Catholic churches “in” communion with Rome to indicate somewere that they are in fact Catholic so as not to be confused with some of the protestant churches.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.