Is it permitted yet by Rome to attend mass/ receive sacraments at a Society of Saint Pius X chapel?

-- Pete Cornelius (pcl_9@hotmail.com), April 06, 2004

Answers

Bump/

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 06, 2004.

Some bishops at least have made knowledgable attendance at an SSPX Mass grounds for automatic excommunication. Note that this is distinct from attending a licit, Ecclesia Dei Tridentine rite Mass.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), April 06, 2004.

SSPX is a sectarian group. They are not in communion with the Holy See.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 06, 2004.

"If your PRIMARY reason for attending (an SSPX mass) were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff AND those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is to simply participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin."

Monsignor (Now Archbishop) Camille Perl Secretary of the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 07, 2004.

Brian,

The problem with that quote is that the words, "an SSPX Mass" are in brackets. Some SSPX Websites have been known to insert words into quotes that completely change their meaning. Can you provide a link to the source of your quote?

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), April 07, 2004.

Does that mean that a Church called Saint Pius X is a member of this group? I know of one with this name, so how can I know whether it's ok?

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 07, 2004.

If there is no other mass available, you may attend an SSPX mass, the masses are illicit, but not invalid. Their organization has been excommunicated, so if you follow their beliefs, and go to their mass, you may end up in schism yourself. Look for a sanctioned Tridentine mass instead.

The sacraments are more of a problem. As the SSPX clergy is excommunicated, their sacraments may not be valid. Please see the Catholic encyclopedia article on excommunication for further information on this.

Finally, as said previously, watch out for SSPX websites! They do post priests, bishops, canon lawyers, all with favorable opinions towards their schismatic group. These do NOT change the fact that they were excommunicated by name by the Pope, and this still stands today. Don't get sucked in to their deceit.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 07, 2004.

Perhaps I should reword my question. Are all SSPX churches called "Saint Pius X," and is it possible that the one nearby with this name could still be in communion with the Catholic Church? I mean, would a legitimate Catholic Church still carry this name?

Thanks!

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 07, 2004.

Check with your local Diocese. They may even have a website. I see no reason why a Roman Catholic Church would not be named St. Pius X.

-bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 07, 2004.

http://www.oltyn.com/cfn/sspx-obl.htm

Vatican Admits Society of Saint Pius X Masses Fulfill Sunday Obligation

On January 8, 2003, the Vatican's Ecclesia Dei Commission, in response to someone who asked about attending chapels of the Society of Saint Pius X founded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, wrote in a letter that:

1) Attending the Society of Saint Pius X chapels fulfills the Catholic's Sunday obligation,

2) That Catholics are permitted to make financial contributions to the Society of Saint Pius X.

-- A FRIEND (NEVER@MIND.TV), April 07, 2004.

Thanks, Bill. I just check, and indeed, they are listed on the diocesan website. Wow, that could be confusing for people, who think it's part of the SSPX group.

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 07, 2004.

1) Attending the Society of Saint Pius X chapels fulfills the Catholic's Sunday obligation,

2) That Catholics are permitted to make financial contributions to the Society of Saint Pius X.

1. Yes, so does attending other excommunicated groups, as they are still *valid* masses, just not *licit* ones. You'll note the Vatican doesn't RECOMMEND it, nor do they recommend your sticking your hand as near a fire as possible, to see if you can still get the benefit of its warmth, but hopefully not get burned by it.

2. I don't believe the Church *forbids* you to give money to a pro-abortion political candidate or even planned panenthood. SHOULD you do so? No. Does the church RECOMMEND you give money to the sspx? No. You could say the same about the Eastern Orthodox churches, you aren't forbidden from contributing to them either, nor are you forbidden from contributing to the Lutheran parish of your choice.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 07, 2004.

Something stinks about that link.

Before taking its claims at face value, one would do well to examine first this article about disingenuous SSPX self-justifications.

Besides, "The Tridentine Rite was never banned" and "Individual Catholics do not have a right to attend Mass in that fashion" are both true and not contradictory. The rite can still be celebrated- -and IS celebrated, frequently, all over the US. But an individual's inability to find one in their diocese does not constitute a violation of their rights as a Catholic, nor does it justify illicit alternatives.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), April 07, 2004.

Catholics have a weekly obligation to participate in a Catholic mass.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 07, 2004.

anon,

The quote by Monsignor Perl can be found at: www.unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm

He is clearly talking about SSPX mass. However, you and Frank are correct that certain websites, and not just SSPX, should be looked at cautiously and carefully. The letter also states that although attending the mass is permitted, it is not recommended

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 07, 2004.

What exactly is a SSPX mass? Why were they excommunicated? I have only heard of this type mass on this forum. I have been wanting to ask.

-- sonya (johnsonya2003@hotmail.com), April 09, 2004.

SSPX stands for the Society of St. Pius X. It was founded by Archbishop Lefebvre in order to perpetuate the Tridentine Mass. The Tridentine is the format for the mass use prior to Vatican II. While the core elements of the Roman Mass have not changed over the years, many of the lesser elements have. For a history of the changes in the lesser elements of the mass, see this article.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 09, 2004.

The excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre and the four "bishops" he ordained were all excommunicated for disobedience to the Pope. Believe me, there are plenty of long threads on it here.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 09, 2004.

I understand what it means now. I didn't know that there were more threads on this forum about it. It is a big dissappointment when Bishops are disobedient because they are suppose to lead their flock in the right direction, not confuse them and cause them to possibly go astray.

-- Sonya (johnsonya2003@hotmail.com), April 09, 2004.

With all the research I have been able to do over the past 5 years I have yet to find anything authoritative as to the Excommunication of Bishop LeFebvre or anyone else in SSPX. I find lots of opinion, lots of accusations but no proof.

Can someone please provide help with this?

I have been kicked out of my local parish because I would ask people to please not disturb my prayer after mass. I was ruled uncharitable and asked not to return. The closest mass is a SSPX mass 100 miles away.

-- Bill Lee (davranger@opera.com), April 16, 2004.

Bill,

Here's the Proof on the excommunicated archbishop Lefebvre: Link

this should answer all your questions, as it is by the Pope.

Here's the important part for you: Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.

the other important part: 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.

If you want info, there it is. If you just are looking for an excuse to rehash an old subject, please reread the numerous, long, threads on the subject instead.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 17, 2004.

I apologize if this has been discussed before. I did a quick look at old threads and didn't notice it. Is there a double standard between the Vatican's treatment of Archbishop Lefebve and the four bishops and the Catholic Patriot Organization which has ordained 100 bishops without papal approval yet are not excommunicated or in schism? More details he re./a> There are many catholic priests who risk their lives and work underground in China rather than join the communist controlled, pro-abortion, heretical CPA (and I don't think the underground priests are considered in schism either). Why isn't the CPA in schism as well?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 17, 2004.

Sorry about messing up the link.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 17, 2004.

Very good question Brian. I don't have an answer. I hope someone does. I have been wondering what the hell is the Holy See's policy on China. The situation seems to be the same as England from 1560 to 1850 when the Anglicans claimed to be the true Catholic church in England and the real Catholics were forced underground. The Holy See sure didn't recognise any of the Anglican bishops as Catholic.

Bill said "I have been kicked out of my local parish because I would ask people to please not disturb my prayer after mass."

Frankly I find this hard to believe Bill. There must be more to the story. Did you act uncharitably to the people who were disturbing you and make a scene? Which parish is it exactly? I assume it was the parish priest who "kicked you out". Did you ask him what power he had to this? (because he doesn't) Did you complain to your bishop?

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 23, 2004.

The SSPX bishops have NOT been excommunicated. Pope JPII only said, in "Ecclesia Dei Afflicta" (which you can find ALL OVER the web), in so many words, "Take note: these men have excommunicated themselves by a schismatic act." there was no infallibility invoked, no solemn judgement, no pronouncement of excommunication. Note that he only invokes his "Apostolic authority" at the end, when he declares the foundation of the Fraternity of St. Peter. He never solemnly declares the 4 bishops excommunicated.

http://www.chantcd.com/c/ecclesia_dei.htm

Compare the former letter with the following excommunication of the Old Catholics by Pope St. Pius X. Note the solemnity, the authority invoked, and the fact of his formal declaration of it.

http://www.chantcd.com/c/real_excomm.htm

Excommunication requires that a mortal sin be committed - if someone (even by mistake) thought there to be a case of necessity, and acted accordingly - any "latae sententiae" excommunication would not occur. So we can be quite sure that Archbishop Lefebvre, because he acted out of necessity (even if only in his mind), at LEAST _thought_ he was acting in the interests of the Holy Catholic Church, and had no intention of going into schism. He is often quoted to that effect, that if anyone goes into schism, it will never be him.

Matthew McDevitt

-- Matthew McDevitt (maktos@insightbb.com), June 15, 2004.

To the person on here who put "bishops" in quotes when referring to the 4 bishops of the SSPX:

Even Rome has acknowledged they are validly ordained bishops, albeit illicitly consecrated. That is a matter of public record, and not to be disputed. They have the fullness of the priesthood.

As a proof of this, note the recent Campos agreement. The bishop in Campos that the 4 SSPX priests consecrated (at the request of Bishop de Castro Mayer) was accepted as a valid bishop by Rome when the Campos diocese recently made an agreement with Rome. No conditional re-consecration was performed or required. What does that tell you?

They they are at least considered valid bishops.

-- Matthew McDevitt (maktos@insightbb.com), June 15, 2004.

Matthew, you said,

The SSPX bishops have NOT been excommunicated. Pope JPII only said, in "Ecclesia Dei Afflicta" (which you can find ALL OVER the web), in so many words, "Take note: these men have excommunicated themselves by a schismatic act." there was no infallibility invoked, no solemn judgement, no pronouncement of excommunication.

The Pope in Ecclesia Dei really said, Link to Ecclesia Dei - Vatican

In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)

They ARE excommunicated *by name* which the Pope has the authority to do. That's as solemn a pronouncement as you need, and binding.

Excommunication requires that a mortal sin be committed - if someone (even by mistake) thought there to be a case of necessity, and acted accordingly - any "latae sententiae" excommunication would not occur.

The problem with your argument is that they are NOT the people who decide whether or not something is necessary. The Pope DOES have that right, he talked to Lefebvre et. al. on several occasions, and the Pope even notes in Ecclesia Dei that after warnings they refused to obey. There's no claim of necessity, they weren't on some remote island with no supervision. They just refused to obey the head of Christ's church's direct order. He warned them, they disobeyed, and got excommunicated. Hope they stocked up on asbestos underwear.

and had no intention of going into schism.

This is bull-oney. If he didn't want to go into schism, he could have obeyed the Pope. He could have recanted AFTER the excommunication, and been a good Catholic again. He did neither. Therefore, he prefered following his own schism to being a Catholic, and died in a state of schism. According to the pre-Vat II pope Eugene, that puts him squarely in Hell, but being a fan of the old days, I'm sure you already know that.

To the person on here who put "bishops" in quotes when referring to the 4 bishops of the SSPX:

Even Rome has acknowledged they are validly ordained bishops, albeit illicitly consecrated. That is a matter of public record, and not to be disputed. They have the fullness of the priesthood.

Exactly right. An ordination can never be reversed. If a priest or Bishop becomes an athiest or a Satan worshipper, they are still an ordained priest. The mark on their soul is still there. So what? One shouldn't follow a heretic or schismatic, their teachings lead AWAY from the path of Christ. If you follow Lefebvre's schism, in Ecclesia Dei you'll note you are ALSO excommunicated, and therefore in deep water. Repent while you have time.

As a proof of this, note the recent Campos agreement. The bishop in Campos that the 4 SSPX priests consecrated (at the request of Bishop de Castro Mayer) was accepted as a valid bishop by Rome when the Campos diocese recently made an agreement with Rome.

What is this supposed to show? That you can become a Catholic after being a schismatic? Great for them! The important part of the sentence is *agreement with Rome*. Too bad Lefebvre died in schism without an *agreement with Rome*, no one should suffer the fires of Hell, but he will, again, based on Pope Eugene.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 15, 2004.

You should remind him of this:

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

The next thing you can do is start working on your explanation to God why you would kiss the ring of someone who will be damned. Good luck with that. Going to kiss the Koran at the same time and revere a heretic AND a schismatic?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 15, 2004.

Too bad Lefebvre died in schism without an *agreement with Rome*, no one should suffer the fires of Hell, but he will, again, based on Pope Eugene.

***Frank, your above statement is a bit much. You were not in the room with Lefebvre when he passed away so you do not know what was in his heart or what he confessed. Only God knows ALL about Lefebvre and where he ended up.

God Bless,

Jalapeno

-- Jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), June 16, 2004.

Jalepe~no,

You have to understand the history here. Jake was here for at least a year or two and with two or three others loudly trumpeted the schismatic cause, and called the Catholic mass an *abomination*, said he (correct me if I'm wrong Jake) would rather go without the last rites than have a "novus ordo" priest perform them, kept posting pictures to he felt would demean the church, etc. I've just grown tired of it, and he understands the point I'm making, that according to the pre-VatII church he claims to love, his idols' actions lead to Hell. Even being a follower in formal adherence to Lefebvre's schism results in excommunication, so the same could apply to his ardent followers. It is really a form of cruelty (which is un-Christian, I know) on my part in that I believe we are held accountable to our level of awareness, I'm making sure that his is as aware as can be...

Do I believe it's MY call to say Lefebvre et. al. are in Hell? Of course not. But according to the church they think they belong to, THEY should believe it!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 16, 2004.

Well, you'll have to wait for someone else to get that tilda over the N, LOL

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 16, 2004.

Emerald,

Be see, Frank, no one is to be considered a schismatic for simply attending the Traditional Latin Mass.

It's their Latin right, so to speak. Quo Primum guarantees it, forever. It's never been abrogated.

Well Emerald, let's actually read part of what you posted.

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,

and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified

Hmm, so the mass can't be changed or modified, and must be followed *absolutely*... LOL, not that we haven't been through this before, but the Tridentine rite was FIRST changed within a couple of decades after Quo Primum was written. It's been changed over a dozen times SINCE then too, all PRIOR to Vatican II. What that means Emerald, is if you are correct, then your schismatics and everyone else who is using the Tridentine rite are ALSO not saying a proper mass and are disobeying quo primum, because the missal HAS been modified which would go against said decree. If you can find any splinter group that actually uses the original version of the Tridentine, I'd not only be shocked, but rather impressed. Start digging!

OTOH, if you are just plain WRONG in your interpretation, there's no problem. Quo Primum means that individuals or even groups can't change the missal, it does NOT restrict the church herself from changing it. If it did, NO ONE has been saying a proper mass for 500 years! Which is it Emerald, did the church as a whole quit saying mass correctly in the 1600's, or is it still saying mass correctly now?

Sorry Emerald, another swing, and.... a miss.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 16, 2004.

Jake,

Thank you for that correction.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 16, 2004.

There is no such thing as a "Novus Ordo priest". The term "Novus Ordo" pertains to the order of Mass, nothing else. There are Catholic priests - period. They all have exactly the same sacramental ministry. To favor reception of the sacraments from one priest rather than another shows a lack of understanding of the very nature of the sacraments. It is God who provides sacramental grace, not the priest. God is equally capable of pouring out that grace through any ordained minister in His Church. To deny that makes the sacraments a work of the priest, not a work of God.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 16, 2004.

Jake was here for at least a year or two and with two or three others loudly trumpeted the schismatic cause, and called the Catholic mass an *abomination*, said he (correct me if I'm wrong Jake) would rather go without the last rites than have a "novus ordo" priest perform them, kept posting pictures to he felt would demean the church, etc. I've just grown tired of it, and he understands the point I'm making, that according to the pre-VatII church he claims to love, his idols' actions lead to Hell. Even being a follower in formal adherence to Lefebvre's schism results in excommunication, so the same could apply to his ardent followers. It is really a form of cruelty (which is un- Christian, I know) on my part in that I believe we are held accountable to our level of awareness, I'm making sure that his is as aware as can be...

Do I believe it's MY call to say Lefebvre et. al. are in Hell? Of course not. But according to the church they think they belong to, THEY should believe it!

Frank

***With all due respect, I have no idea OR have I read what you have been going through with these "debates" for two and a half years. All I could see on my end (which I have not been on as long as my dh Brian) is you judging Lefebvre and stating that he was in hell which I felt was uncalled for. That is all.

God Bless,

Jalapeno

-- Jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), June 16, 2004.

Jalepeno,

The best thing you could do is quit reading and go to the next thread, LOL! I do NOT think it's our place to judge people's souls, but you'd have to read the old debates with these guys to appreciate the irony this topic presents. These people (strongly dislike) Vatican II for saying we should basically trust to God's mercy more, and try and show it to be invalid somehow by pointing out phrases of documents written 500 years ago. When you point out OTHER documents from 500 years ago showing their leaders and possiby them to be damned for doing what they did, well, it's kind of a hoot, isn't it? You don't like your yardstick, so you go metric. You go metric and your bolts don't fit! Well, I think it's a hoot at least, but like I said, the best thing to do is just ignore these threads, you won't see much productive here.

Should I take my own advice? Probably, LOL, but even MORE probably ...

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 17, 2004.

"Frank" said:

"but the Tridentine rite was FIRST changed within a couple of decades after Quo

Primum was written. It's been changed over a dozen times SINCE then too, all PRIOR

to Vatican II."

The BIG difference between the changes in the last 5 centuries and the Novus Ordo

changes: those small changes over the centuries (adding the Elevation, a

genuflection here or there, the Last Gospel, etc) had the following characteristics: A) They fostered devotion and reverence. B) They were 100% Catholic, expressing

precisely elements of the Catholic Faith, and so were useful. C) They were natural

developments - not creating a whole new Mass, but simply ADDING more "Catholic

Faith-expressing" liturgical actions to the existing Mass, which is perfectly OK.

The Novus Ordo, on the other hand, completely threw the WHOLE Mass out, and started

over from scratch with a new concoction. Talk about a complete disregard for

Catholic Tradition! Worse, they invited 6 Protestant "experts" to advise on what

elements of the Tridentine Mass they were most bothered with - and most of these

same elements were removed when they created the Novus Ordo. Anyone who says the

Novus Ordo grew organically out of the Tridentine Mass is not to be taken seriously. History, the facts, and hundreds of quotes from THE MEN INVOLVED back in the 60's

are completely against them! Further, the changes are not for the better expression of the Catholic Faith -- but

rather make the Mass more pleasing to Protestants, which was their goal all along. Lastly, every change they made happens to be in the same direction - toward more

distractions, less reverence, a less sacred (and more earthly) atmosphere, blurring

the distinction between the Priest and people (toward a more Protestant,

"democratic" approach) Most people (including some ex-Novus Ordo priests) say that it was much harder to

pray and meditate on divine things during a Novus Ordo Mass - the Tridentine Mass,

on the other hand, fosters devotion and prayer. It doesn't keep you constantly

"busy". By the way, one cannot be excommunicated for being Catholic. Those in the SSPX, starting with Archbishop Lefebvre, did not change anything they were doing. He believed the same Faith, administered the same sacraments, etc. that he did for all the decades he was a priest. All the sudden the Church changes, and he goes from being greatly trusted and praised by the Popes, from being a shining example of fidelity to the Catholic Faith and the Pope, to being some kind of

villian? HOW DID HE CHANGE? The answer is, he didn't. It was the Church that changed. Just like during the Arian crisis, we have again a majority of bishops on the wrong path (this time, Modernism - called by Pope St. Pius X "the synthesis of

all heresies")

-- Matthew McDevitt (maktos@insightbb.com), June 23, 2004.

"not creating a whole new Mass, but simply ADDING more "Catholic Faith- expressing" liturgical actions to the existing Mass, which is perfectly OK."

A: So, in the final analysis, changes to the Mass are acceptable as long as they strike YOU as "perfectly OK", but are not acceptable if YOU are personally unable to relate to them. YOU claim to be the ultimate authority, overrriding the Holy Father and the Magisterium. The problem here is that Jesus Christ told THEM, not YOU, "whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven". But that's ok, because YOU are the ultimate authority, overriding even God Himself by your obstinate refusal to accept what is bound in heaven by the word of God Himself.

"The Novus Ordo, on the other hand, completely threw the WHOLE Mass out, and started over from scratch with a new concoction. Talk about a complete disregard for Catholic Tradition!"

A: That is completey absurd. The essence of the Mass has not changed since the Last Supper. The Consecration and Communion, strictly speaking, IS the "whole Mass". Everything else is simply provides a context within the Mass is celebrated. Incidentally, there are no doctrinal issues involved here, therefore your use of the phrase "Catholic Tradition" is inappropriate. Catholic Tradition never changes. But what you are talking about is simple "Catholic traditions", which have changed in every generation, and will continue to do so as the Church meets the needs of all people in all times and places.

"Worse, they invited 6 Protestant "experts" to advise on what elements of the Tridentine Mass they were most bothered with - and most of these same elements were removed when they created the Novus Ordo.

A: Though this claim is invariably overstated and overemphasized, just as you have done, do you suppose that whatever input the Church might have accepted from Protestant liturgists might have had something to do with the fact that Protestant worship, even with its obvious insufficiencies, was growing by leaps and bounds, while the Catholic Church was facing a crisis, with fewer and fewer people attenting the Tridentine Mass, in spite of the real presence of Our Lord and Savior?

"rather make the Mass more pleasing to Protestants, which was their goal all along"

A: This is utterly ridiculous. What possible reason would the Catholic Church have in making the Mass "more pleasing" to people who in all likelihood will never attend a Catholic Mass, and who by and large know nothing about the Mass, and care about it even less??? How many Protestants are even aware of the changes in the externals of the Mass? How many even know that Vatican II happened?? And why would they care what happens to the order of worship in a Church they have already rejected? Nonsense!

"Those in the SSPX, starting with Archbishop Lefebvre, did not change anything they were doing. He believed the same Faith, administered the same sacraments, etc. that he did for all the decades he was a priest. All the sudden the Church changes, and he goes from being greatly trusted and praised by the Popes, from being a shining example of fidelity to the Catholic Faith and the Pope, to being some kind of villian? HOW DID HE CHANGE?"

A: He changed by rejecting the authority of the Pope and the Magisterium. That act is called schism. The fact that Lefebvre continued going through the same motions after separating himself from the Church of God doesn't change the fact that he was separated. No priest on earth has any authority except in union with his bishop. And no bishop has any authority except in union with the Vicar of Christ. Once that union is broken by a schismatic act, no authority exists for the schismatic priest or bishop.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 23, 2004.

"Matthew",

he BIG difference between the changes in the last 5 centuries and the Novus Ordo

changes: those small changes over the centuries

You do realize this is hilarious, right? You quoted Quo Primum which says NO changes must be made, NOW you say, "well, these weren't BIG changes". You obviously accept the fact that Quo Primum did NOT mean that the church as a whole couldn't change the mass, or else you would be protesting using the Tridentine as it's used now, since even when the Tridentine was practiced, it was modified over and over. Therefore, for you to say that some change that you admit the church has the authority to make is "too big" isjust, Hilarious! Who made YOU the judge of what rite the church must use? Talk about a Protestant attitude. The Catholic attitude is the Pope and Magesterium decides with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, and you OBEY. That's what's lacking in you guys, obedience.

By the way, one cannot be excommunicated for being Catholic. Those in the SSPX, starting with Archbishop Lefebvre, did not change anything they were doing.

The first part of this is true, you can't be excommunicated for being Catholic, and of course, the excommunicated archbishop Lefebvre was NOT excommunicated for being Catholic. Unfortunately, the second part is incorrect. Lefebvre et. al. DID change what they were doing, they STOPPED being obedient to the legitimate authority of the church, and became Schismatics for doing things the way THEY wanted, rather than following the Pope and Magesterium. That is why he was excommunicated by name by the Pope, for being DISOBEDIENT to the legitimate authority of the church.

Sorry Matthew, but if you are going to be in Lefebvre's camp, you might as well be a Baptist. By the way, do you remember the quote from Pope Eugene on what happens to schismatics?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 23, 2004.

bah, tags

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 23, 2004.