Rorate Caeli

SSPX news agency: we deeply regret this change

The official news agency of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), DICI, published today an article on the reform of the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews, and adds this unsigned comment, the first on the matter in an official SSPX publication:

Our Comment:

Following pressures foreign to the Catholic Church, the Pope considered himself forced to change the very venerable Prayer for the Jews which is a full part of the Good Friday liturgy. This prayer is one of the most ancient; it dates from around the 3rd century, and has thus been recited, throughout the history of the Church, as the full expression of the Catholic faith.

It must be mentioned that the comments by Cardinal Kasper - which we may consider as authorized - give this amputation the aspect of a true transformation, expressing a new theology of the relations with the Jewish people. It is part of the liturgical upheaval which is the characteristic mark of the Council and of the reforms it entailed.

Even though the need to accept the Messiah in order to be saved has been preserved, one cannot but deeply regret this change.

137 comments:

Anonymous said...

We have a coward Pope!

Anonymous said...

I suppose that this is the end of SSPX.

Johnny Domer said...

The prayer replaced is NOT ancient, it has NOT been recited thus throughout the history of the Church; it was inserted into the '62 missal in place of the older prayer. Am I missing something, or is this statement just totally incorrect?

I must say, that's the reason why I wasn't that concerned with the change in itself...the prayer they replaced is 45 years old. In Church time, that's nothing. I only disliked the change because I feared it would provoke reactions like this one.

Anonymous said...

It is clear that the prayers was part of the negotiations between the Holy See and Israel regarding money. Also Benedict is afraid of the show that he will have to face in his next visit to the US. It would be fantastic if he faces sometime like the Sandinistas rendered JPII during his visit to Nicaragua in 1983. Deo Gratia!

Anonymous said...

Or perhaps Benedict really belives that he is smarter than everyone else. Well, he flopped this one, and big. I hope he has learned his lesson. This man badly needs a trial of humility, he is very conceited.

Anonymous said...

Yes, this is the end for the sspx. Their bishops are enjoying their roles as big fish in a little pond. A broad return to tradition is what they fear most. They remind me of jesse jackson. Without racism, he is out of a job. This explains all of the wacky conspiracy theories within the Society. 9/11, zionists, masons; the SSPX is adopting these positions to maintain its relevancy. Its sad because they have done such a service to the Church by keeping they liturgy alive.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I agree. The SSPX has gone way too far off track and it may be too late to bring them back anytime soon.

Anonymous said...

The society tells us that they are not schismatic. I don't think of them as schismatic. They say they obey the pope, except where conscience obliges something that only appears to be disobedience. However, I have a hard time seeing how rejecting an orthodox prayer, however unfortunate, can be said to be a real matter of conscience. It seems they can only do this by appealing to Kaspar's quote. If the pope publically said that the Jews are to convert even now, would they accept it then?

What I find troubling is that this reaction gives the impression that they are very comfortable being at odds with the Pope, even when the matter is not a crucial one.

This prayer is neither poison, nor cancer. It is clear: salvation is in Christ. Also, even if it does express something about the end of time, this is, itself, a doctrine that can give hope to Catholics. It can confirm us in our faith, knowing that even the Jews, as a whole will someday see the light. Until then, there is nothing in the prayer that denies their need to convert now...as the gentiles convert...and the fact that it says that salvation is in Christ would seem to obilige us to understand the prayer as being for all Jews at all times (unless we are without charity).

john said...

The press release does not say they refuse to use it. They simply regret the change.

schoolman said...

The problem with the SSPX position on this matter is that they consider the prayer only from the point of view of themselves -- what they want and prefer. The prayer is primarily for the Jews and their conversion and that is why the Pope decided to remove possible stumbling blocks to their conversion. Does the SSPX really care about the conversion of the Jews after all or do they care more about themselves? Someone had noted that the new prayer removes the ambiguity and interpretation of the old prayer as praying "at" the Jews rather than "for" the Jews -- as in the prayer of the pharacies..."thank God I am not like those 'blinded' Jews with 'veils over their hearts', etc. Ironically, this reveals a certain "blindness" in the heart of the SSPX that have "veils over their hearts". That explains why the Holy Father, in Summorum Pontificum has called for Catholics to "open wide your hearts..."

Jim said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
schoolman said...

"It must be mentioned that the commentaries of Cardinal Kasper - which we may consider as authorized..."
==================

No, we may not consider it as authorized when Kaspar's interpretation is at odds with the Holy Father's own Catechesis on the matter of Jewish conversion:

"With their very own existence, the Twelve - called from different backgrounds - become an appeal for all of Israel to convert and allow herself to be gathered into the new covenant, complete and perfect fulfilment of the ancient one. The fact that he entrusted to his Apostles, during the Last Supper and before his Passion, the duty to celebrate his Pasch, demonstrates how Jesus wished to transfer to the entire community, in the person of its heads, the mandate to be a sign and instrument in history of the eschatological gathering begun by him. In a certain sense we can say that the Last Supper itself is the act of foundation of the Church, because he gives himself and thus creates a new community, a community united in communion with himself."

BENEDICT XVI

GENERAL AUDIENCE

Wednesday, 15 March 2006
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060315_en.html

Jim said...

I thank Bishop Fellay for his courageous stand in defense of the Traditional Latin Mass in its full integrity, as I also thank Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre for his single-handed saving of that Mass. Without Archbishop Lefebvre, there would have been no indult, as useless as it was, and no Summorum Pontificum. It's really unfortunate that Benedict couldn't even let one liturgical cycle finish without putting his hands on the TLM. And to do it "for fear of the Jews" is just plain wrong.

schoolman said...

Thankfully we have examples such as the traditional Redemptorists of Papa Stronsay. Anybody can obey decisions that they agree with. But the VIRTUE of obedience really comes into play when we don't particularly agree -- yet the decision does not directly involve sin. With hearts wide open the Transalpine Redemptorists are a shining example and sign of the future of the traditionalist movement.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Notice
In what concerns the Solemn Prayers of the Good Friday Liturgy, the Transalpine Redemptorists will obey with submission the newly promulgated Prayer for the Jews as ordered by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI on February 4th 2008.

Fr. Michael Mary, C.SS.R.
Vicar General
8 February, 2007

Anonymous said...

On the first comment. This is not the end of the S.S.P.X. I very much doubt that the Pope would bind the Society on this. The Holy See is not saying that the 1962 prayer was unacceptable or bad, only that it is better to have a change, given current circumstances and œcumenical relations with the Jews. I fully expect that, in future negotiations with the S.S.P.X, the Holy See will simply agree to make an exception.

Rome will not refuse an arrangement for the S.S.P.X simply over a purely prudential matter of the liturgy.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

The SSPX is doing great - the Novus Ordo church is disappearing.

The whole point is to resist that modernist passion for changing everything just to make it suit the times. As always, there is no real need to change this prayer as no conversions will come from it and the reaction by Jews is already in and scorns it. One might think, therefore, if it didn't have the intended effect, change it back, but no, not you modernists.

Go play with your toy Novus Ordo mass and leave our venerable one alone. That's what the Novus Ordo is for.

Anonymous said...

To Johnny Domer:

You have a valid point but I think that the S.S.P.X simply failed to be accurate. The words of 1962 are from the third century. The fact that, before 1959, there were two instances of one word that was dropped, does not change this. In other words, the 1959 revision only deleted two words; it did not alter any of the other words (even gramatically), so that all the words of 1962 are from the 3rd century, whereas the words of the revision are almost entirely from the 21st century, although they are based on a Biblical text (thank God for that).

I suggest that the Society is pointing to an accepted principle in liturgial alteration, which is that change can be ranked in terms of how disruptive it is. The least disruption is caused merely be adding words, without changing those coming before or after the addition. Nest is the substraction of simple terms, preferably also without grammatical change. Then come alterations or 'recastings' to existing forms that keep the form essentially but not entirely intact. Then are re-orderings, in which the words are changed little or not at all but are moved from one place to another (Pope St. Gregory the Great did this in the sixth century in our Canon). Next are substitutions that alter the form or tone but keep the purpose of the prayer the same. Then come deletions, in which an ancient prayer or form is simply removed entirely. Finally, there are replacements, in which one prayer on one subject is deleted and replaced by another prayer on a completely different subject (e.g. suppose that a prayer of adoration to the Father were replaced by a confession of sins).

The 1959 revision was minimally disruptive, since the removal of two instances of one word did not even alter the grammatical form of the other words.

The 2008 revision is a middle case in the foregoing ranking; it is a substitution which changes nearly all the words but keeps the purpose the same.

Clearly, the 2008 change was far more disruptive liturgically than that of 1959. Nobody would seriously contest that assertion. The Society is saying that all the words of the 1962 version were composed in the Third Century [even though two words from the ancient text were deleted in 1959].

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Some here say that the S.S.P.X is off track. No, it is staying on a 1,700 year track. It is the Pope who goes off track when he alters the Work of the Holy Ghost in the Sacred Liturgy at the behest or demand of infidels who do not even believe that there is a Holy Ghost.

Contratulations to Bishop Fellay for standing fast for tradition and for transmitting that which he has received.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

To John:

They have said elsewhere (such as in a private e-mail to me) that they will not use it. However, this is not an act of disobedience. If you look at the text of the Nota, the Pope only replaces a text in the 1962 books. But the S.S.P.X does not use the 1962 books for the Triduum Sacram; it uses the pre-1955 books (specifically, those of the editio typica of 1920). Since they do not use the 1962 words in the first place, they do not disobey by not making a change that was not applied to the books they do use.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

How do they know the prayer is from the 3rd century? What text are they citing?

Anonymous said...

Cardinal Kasper's comments are considered to be authorised because His
Eminence represents the Pope officially as the President of the Commission for Promoting Christian Unity. If the Pope finds that the Cardinal is misrepresenting him, then he should replace him. Not to do so could confuse the faithful and lead souls astray, thereby violating the very highest law in the Church: Salus animarum lex suprema est.

So the S.S.P.X has every right to regard Kasper's words as representative of the Holy See.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

To Schoolman:

The reaction of the Jews so far would suggest that the new prayer is not more likely to convert Jews than was the old!

Anyway, the purpose of the prayer is not to appeal to Jews but to impress on us Catholics how urgent is the plight of the Jews. Their state is much worse than that of other infidels because the others did not reject the Messias Who was sent specifically to them as His chosen people. A fortiori, even the Muslims do not calumniate our Lord and His Holy and Immaculate Mother in the way the Jews do in their blasphemous Talmud. In Gitten 57a and Sanhedrin 106a, they say things about Christ which are too horrible even to allude to on this blog. Why would a Pope alter our prays to placate us when they have not removed those reference to Christ, and the references to Christians which are so hurtful? Why, I ask? Should not œcumenism and peace be a two-way street?

P.K.T.P.

schoolman said...

PKTP, I think you have been misinformed regarding the SSPX missal for Holy Week. They use the reformed Holy Week liturgy as published in the Angelus missal. Of course, those reforms were far more significant than this -- and yet accepted by Archbishop Lefebvre out of obedience to lawful authority -- even if he did not personally like the changes. All of these objections and excuses do not reflect the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre as far as I can tell.

schoolman said...

To Schoolman:

"The reaction of the Jews so far would suggest that the new prayer is not more likely to convert Jews than was the old!"
====================

All we have seen is the intial Jewish shock that they are explicitly called to conversion in Christ. But the Holy Father has removed any possible objections on the pretext of "anti-semitic" interpretations. Don't expect all Jews to convert over night. St. Paul says that the job won't be complete until the fulness of Gentiles enter in. So have some patience...

schoolman said...

"Cardinal Kasper's comments are considered to be authorised because His
Eminence represents the Pope officially as the President of the Commission for Promoting Christian Unity."
====================

Nonsense. The prayer was not issued by his department and so his interpretation is...well, only his. The same can be said about Kaspar's objections to the recent CDF instructions. He complained about them -- yet he does not have the final word or provide keys to the so-called "authentic" interpretation. If you want to know about the papal teaching on Jewish conversion then read the words of the current Holy Father on the matter. It's the only possible and reasonable "interpretation" of the prayer:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060315_en.html

As Kaspar...well, I predict he will be gone soon enough.

schoolman said...

I think it's interesting that the SSPX gives Kaspar even more credit than the Jews do. While the SSPX credits Kaspar with the "authentic" meaning of the prayer the Jews did not but it for a second. They know exactly what the prayer means -- that they (not only their decendents at the end of time) are called to personal conversion to Christ). Yet, they still decided to request a "clarification" from the Holy See -- and this after hearing and discounting Kaspar's interpretation intended only to pacify their outrage. The Jews want the truth from the Rome -- and they know that they did not get it from Kaspar.

Anonymous said...

Dear Schoolman:

No, you have it wrong here. The Jews now want a clarification in the hope that Kasper's material heresy may be accepted. Kasper's misinterpretation is logically possible now, thanks to the new words. Now they want that possibility to be affirmed as the correct one. This has opened a can of worms which the old prayer never did.

The Pope should have simply ignored the whines and bitchings of these infidels. How arrogant they are to think that we should change how we pray to suit them! Do they denounce the hurtful words in the Talmud about Christ to suit us? Not on your life!

The S.S.P.X is entirely right. The change is regrettable. We lose the words of 1,700 years and a superior prayer. And they are angrier than before and even less likely to convert. Nobody wins except for neo-conservative Catholics, who worship the Pope as if he were a god because they have a Protestant and an Erastian notion that plenary power means absolute power.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

To Schoolman on What the S.S.P.X uses:

Here is a message to me from Louis J. Tofari, their General Secretary in the U.S.A.:

"This matter does not actually concern us as though we use the 1962 edition of the Missale Romanum, for Holy Week we use the 1955 edition of the OHS in grosso modo (for the most part, with some minor retentions from the pre-1955 ceremonies found in Memoriale Rituum)."

Braadwijk said...

I think this is just a classic example of the SSPX being too far gone to really bother with these days. They rebel simply for the sake of being rebellious, and this is what their order has come to since the election of Benedict XVI. Eventually with time they will become like the Protestants, with no real memory of why they rebelled except for the sake of their rebellion under some concept that has become so abstracted it is completely irrelevant to them. This press release even admits that there is nothing objectionable to prayer, but they don't like it simply because it is a change. (Who are YOU change OUR Missal and think YOU'RE going to tell US how to pray!? You're just Novus Ordo!!!) In doing this they resist the authority of the Pope, WHO IS THE SUPREME LITURGIST OF THE CHURCH, to change the accidents of the Missale Romanum as he sees fit. I also have yet to see on the blog one comment discussing why the Pope did not have the authority to change this prayer and just what about this new prayers makes it offensive to God.

Anonymous said...

On Schoolman's Comments on the possibilities of conversion:

Come on, Schoolman, do you honestly believe that the revision of 2008 will make a difference in anyone's conversion such that a Jew could say, "I wouldn't have converted were it not for that change"? If so, I'd say that that conversion is dishonest.

This change was not made to save souls but only to improve relations with members of another religion. And, judging by present policies of the Church, I don't see any efforts being made to convert anyone, except for some animists and Hindus in the jungles and back countries. Are there any missionary orders which aim to convert the Jews? Not.

Let's be honest. At least in terms of de facto policy, the Church is behaving as if these Jews do not need to be converted but only need to 'converge' with us at the end of time. This revision eases that tendency in policy. Not good.

P.K.T.P.

Braadwijk said...

Again, I apologize for the horrendous grammar. We "Dutchmen" are fluent in English, but we should still review our work. ;)

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Baronius Press, for printing thousands and thousands of 1962 Missals before this unexpected revision of 2008 was announced. As a result, 99.9% of the faithful who do have access to a traditional Good Friday Service will not even be aware of the new abomination. As the priest intones the new words of 2008 in Latin, they will be reading the 1962 words in the vernacular in their brand new Baronius handmissals or their older handmissals. Given this massive new printing for "Summorum Pontificum" (the second edn. is even called the "S.P. edition"), it will be fifty years before anyone is even aware of the 2008 revision. By then, it can be excised.

Thank you, Baronius Press. I love you!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I agree with everything PKTP says because life as a reactionary is fun.

Yours truly.

J.E.R.K.

Braadwijk said...

I can't believe I'm saying this, but it's all fun and games until somebody dies in schism.

Anonymous said...

In the case of J.E.R.K., he really needs to remove the stops from the abbreviation. If an abbreviation is not pronounced as a word, it needs the stops. But, in his case, it clearly is pronounced as a word.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dies in schism?

Yes, let us pray for Cardinal Kasper, that he not die a schismatic, even a heretic. Lord, hear our prayer.

P.K.T.P.

Braadwijk said...

Let's not point out the foibles of others to cover our own misdeeds. If the Pope did it lawfully, you must obey his decision however much you dislike it. If you do not, you are a schismatic. If you are a priest, even more so and much more shamefully. Prove the Pope had no authority to do it and prove he only did it to satisfy the Jews, and we'll talk. Until that time, suck it up and follow his lead.

Anonymous said...

Hi, Perky, nice to see you over here. Mr. Tofari's clarification is certainly welcome, but isn't his grammar a shocker! Where do they get these people?

S.O.B.

Anonymous said...

braadwijk says:

"I think this is just a classic example of the SSPX being too far gone to really bother with these days. They rebel simply for the sake of being rebellious, and this is what their order has come to since the election of Benedict XVI. Eventually with time they will become like the Protestants, with no real memory of why they rebelled except for the sake of their rebellion under some concept that has become so abstracted it is completely irrelevant to them."

Poor Braadwijk worries that the S.S.P.X might become just like Protestants, while NewChurch already has become just like Protestants. Ever seen a typical N.O.M. in the vernacular? Now go over to the United Church and take in their show. Notice how similar they are? There's a reason for that, I'd say. But then I only judge the tree by the fruit. And there's plenty of fruit(s) in our Brave New Order, no? But instead of shaking those fruits out of their tree, we have a new Benedictine seminary document that rolls out the pink carpet for them.

Strange how the S.S.P.X looks just like it might be Catholic, and it has very few sexual scandals. My word, how deceptive that is! How dare is be so Catholic!

But to take a serious turn, Braadwijk seems to attribute "Summorum Pontificum" to Pope Benedict XVI. That's odd. I read somewhere that he granted S.P. only because the S.S.P.X would not talk to Rome unless this grant was made.

Thank goodness for the S.S.P.X. Without it, there would be no "Summorum Pontificum", no Indult of 1984, no F.S.S.P., no I.C.R., no I.P.B., no Campos apostolic administration, no "Ecclesia Dei" of 1988, no Transalpine Redemptorists, no Fraternity of St. Vincent Ferrer, no Benedictines of Fontgombault, no Canons Regular of New Jerusalem or Riaumont in France or of John Cantius in Chicago, and no Servants of Jesus and Mary in Austria or Servants of St. Philip Neri in Germany. Nothing, I tell you. There would be nothing at all! Have a nice day and enjoy the potted plants at your parish church!

So, obviously, the S.S.P.X should be cautious. I love the Byzantine Divine Liturgy but I am also attached to my own rite!

P.K.T.P.




P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Braadwijk says, incredibly:

"Let's not point out the foibles of others to cover our own misdeeds. If the Pope did it lawfully, you must obey his decision however much you dislike it. If you do not, you are a schismatic. If you are a priest, even more so and much more shamefully. Prove the Pope had no authority to do it and prove he only did it to satisfy the Jews, and we'll talk. Until that time, suck it up and follow his lead."

What on earth are you talking about, Braadwijk?

First of all, since the Pope is not an Eastern potentate or a Protestant Hobbesian and Erastian absolute monarch, we are perfectly at liberty to question and even reject his views on this matter. The Pope does not have absolute power in matters of liturgy, and certainly not over our opinions about the same.

One would have to be blind and deaf not to realise that the revision was a reaction to the Jewish complaints. First, the two chief rabbis of Palestine, who are well known to the Pope personally and have met with him privately on several occasions, sent a joint formal and official written request to change the 1962 words. A fortnight later, the Pope complied. You are free to think that there was no connexion and that the succession of these events is pure coincidence. But others are free to think otherwise.

Next post on what this revision obliges.

By the way, simple disobedience does NOT make one a schismatic. Good grief! What have you been reading--or smoking? To be a schismatic, one must repudiate legitimate authority or else establish a parallel authority. S.S.P.X supporters have not done this and are NOT schismatics, except for those among them who have a schismatic intent. The matter of the Society bishops is entirely different and too complicated to get into here.

P.K.T.P.

T. Boyle said...

Thank goodness for the S.S.P.X. Without it, there would be no "Summorum Pontificum", no Indult of 1984, no F.S.S.P., no I.C.R., no I.P.B.

This is the standard argument rolled out by SSPXers. But in truth, we might very well have seen a great deal more freedom for the old Mass all these years had the SSPX NOT existed.

The fact is, the old mass became the banner of disobedient priests and fruitcakes of every stripe during the '70s and '80s. As a result, the Mass was stigmatised. Bishops avoided it like a hot potato. It was seen as the domain of a bunch of theological loons who disobeyed popes and in many cases even questioned the legitimacy of popes. Had this situation not existed, there would have been very little opposition to the Mass.

Braadwijk said...

Pope Benedict has been in favor the EF long before he was Pope. Your claims he did it just to please the SSPX not only use that "New Order" logic you accuse me of, but isn't it funny how much the same "New Order" bishops you eschew also said the same thing!?
If the MP came as a result of the SSPX fighting for it, let's see them take credit for it and accept that "their" Missal is now a part of the Church's mainstream again.

You'll notice I also never said the SSPX had no purpose whatsoever in the scheme of things. I'm saying that now they are playing a very dangerous game and flirting with real schism. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. The SSPX has rightfully complained about the last 40 years, and because liberals rarely care about who they trample upon they were left well enough alone. Now that somebody has come along who does care about the abuses in the Church (and who happens to have a little more authority backing him), they feel they can just carry on as usual and order him around too. Either they can enter real schism out of a desire to be left alone and do what they want to do, or they can accept they have actually played a vital role and live up to their claims of true obedience by backing the Pope and pushing it through despite the Left's cries of protest.

The original questions have not been answered, so instead of carping and complaining let's get back to the issue. Demonstrate how the Pope had no authority to do what he did, demonstrate how he did this to please the Jews (no mere accusations), and then reconcile this lack of authority to all the other changes made to the Missal over the centuries and why those Popes had the authority but somehow Benedict does not.

By the way, I think it's somewhat amusing how if you replace all this "New Order" and "Modernist" name calling with "Papist" and "Romanism", you sound an awful lot like the Protestants of the 16th and 17th centuries.

Again, merely calling out the foibles of the Left does not take away from or excuse the foibles of the SSPX nor does it justify them.

Braadwijk said...

"By the way, simple disobedience does NOT make one a schismatic. Good grief! What have you been reading--or smoking? To be a schismatic, one must repudiate legitimate authority or else establish a parallel authority."

That sounds exactly like what the SSPX has done with this one. By the way, what I do when I'm on holiday in Holland is none of your business, whether it be tobacco or something extra in my cigarettes. :) I'll read your posts and respond more when I'm back in later tonight.

Adam Barnette said...

I side with the Society on this issue. Like I've stated before, the SSPX has shown greater wisdom on the integrity of the Sacred Liturgy than have recent Pontiffs. I have good grounds to trust their wisdom on this issue. Never was it known that the Liturgy of the Holy Catholic Church may be reformed upon the request of non-Catholics or that change for the sake of change is an approved principle. Those who are traditional Catholics value the true height and depth of Catholic Tradition and will see that this new prayer (even if only in its style of promulgation) is unacceptable. Those who are traditional Catholics until the Pope makes a very fallible move will obviously make different choices.

I couldn't help to see the irony in one comment, which stated that the SSPX have went "too far" and that it may be too late to "bring them back." Perhaps this person is unaware that it was precisely the courageous stance of Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society he founded that "brought" the majority of the Church "back" to the understanding that the traditional Roman Liturgy had never been abrogated. What else will the SSPX "bring back" before they go off into the abyss of Catholic Tradition?

I was also shocked at schoolman's comment comparing the ancient Good Friday collect for the conversion of the Jews to the proclamation of the proud Pharisee of the Gospel. I truly wonder how such people can call themselves Catholics when they scorn their patrimony in such a way. Maybe they hold to the warped, and totally untraditional idea that only doctrine (and not praxis also) is the height of being Catholic?

In addition, nobody really addressed how the SSPX response is untraditional. All that has been posted is the typical “the schismatics are making themselves irrelevant” response, which forgets that there can be no schism when your entire existence is a proclamation of Catholic Tradition (which, contrary to the neo-conservatives is not reduced to “obey the Pope”) and conveniently ignores the fact that endless innovation is the most sure way of embarrassing and making the Church irrelevant. Nobody respects a religion, which spurns her patrimony and innovates on ancient prayers because members of false religions make a demand.

Anonymous said...

The S.S.P.X is not "flirting with schism" by rejecting the prayer because the Pope only changed the text of the 1962 books, and the Society does not use the 1962 version for the Triduum Sacram in the first place.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Boyle must be dreaming in technicolour. Does he hoestly believe that our far-left looney bishops would have been more receptive (or less receptive or at all receptive) had the S.S.P.X not existed?

I say, get real. After the suspensio a divinis of 1976, the Holy See waited and the S.S.P.X grew substantially. Hence the 1984 Indult.

In 1988, only four days after the unapproved consecrations of bishops, the Holy See issued "Ecclesia Dei" and invited the creation of traditionalist societies and orders. The F.S.S.P. came out of the S.S.P.X, not out of thin air. Ditto for the Fraternity of St. Vincent Ferrer and the monks of Fontgombault. Hello? Is anyone home?

In 2000, the Holy See offered a personal apostolic administration to the S.S.P.X. (Bishop Fellay even admitted that it was the "Rolls Royce" offer). The Society turned it down but this made possible the one for the Campos jurisdiction; it also made possible the Institute of the Good Shepherd.

Then the Society insisted on two pre-conditions for talks with Rome. One of them was that every priest be accorded the freedom to celebrate the old Mass. Two years later, Benedict XVI grants this.

Boyle doesn't see the connexions. He thinks that it all would have happened anyway, perhaps even more. It's a point of view.

P.K.T.P.

schoolman said...

The 1962 missal uses Holy Week liturgy that was reformed by Pius XII in 1955. Therefore, the SSPX uses the 1962 Holy Week liturgy period. In fact, flip open your Angelus Press Missal and read the introductions to Holy Week. It includes excerpts from the decrees of promulgation by Pius XII. The changes were obligatory and not optional. Archbishop Lefebvre knew these things and so he was obedient to all lawful changes and developments to the Missal of Pius V. Unfortunately, his spirit and attitude is being erased with the passing of each year.

Anonymous said...

Braadwijk writes:

"Let's not point out the foibles of others to cover our own misdeeds. If the Pope did it lawfully, you must obey his decision however much you dislike it. If you do not, you are a schismatic. If you are a priest, even more so and much more shamefully."

What does Braadwijk mean by this? As Catholics, we are indeed subject to the Pope's legitimate authority. As Supreme Legislator, he made a small revision in one liturgical prayer. But how does this obige us? We are only obliged to do or say what the law demands--and no more.

Well, first of all, it means that, in regard to the offering of the Good Friday Liturgy, we lose a right to demand that diocesan priests use the 1962 prayer instead of the 2008 revision. On the other side, laics now do have a right to insist that diocesan priests use the 2008 words in place of the 1962 words.

But that is the extent of it. In terms of other obligations, we must distinguish the case of diocesan clerics from that of laics. Diocesan clerics lose the right to use the 1962 words. Two options remain to them. First, they may use the 2008 revision. Secondly, they may refuse to offer any Good Friday prayers and not have a Good Friday Service. That is because Good Friday is not among the days on which clerics--even parish priests--are required to offer liturgies to the public. Practically, however, this second option is poor because a bishop could retaliate by transferring that priest once his appointment was over. Every diocese has its gulags.

The obligation of laics will follow in my next post.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Schoolman:

Have you read what Mr. Tofari, the S.S.P.X General Secretary wrote? These are his words, not mine:


"This matter does not actually concern us as though we use the 1962 edition of the Missale Romanum, for Holy Week we use the 1955 edition of the OHS in grosso modo (for the most part, with some minor retentions from the pre-1955 ceremonies found in Memoriale Rituum)."

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

PKTP GYOB
(Get yer own blog)

Spray your rad-trad graffiti on your own storefront.

Anonymous said...

On the obligation of laics. What does the law really say?

How does the Nota of Shrove Monday oblige laics, other than what I have already written? It does not require that laics receive the new prayer or use it; they are free to use the 1962 words or the words from before 1955 and to refuse to use the 2008 words.

First of all, as the priest intones the 2008 Zionist revision from the sanctuary, the people are perfectly free to say any prayers they wish, or even to read a book. They are only forbidden from doing something evil or unfitting or causing a distraction or disruption. Therefore, they are perfectly free to read and pray the 1962 words while the priest intones the 2008 words. In fact, thanks to Baronius Press, which has just finished printing tens of thousands of 1962 handmissals, that is exactly what will happen. Since most don't understand Latin, people will be praying the vernacular translation of the 1962 text as the priest intones the 2008 revision. Most won't even be aware of the change. But those who are aware of it are perfectly free to refuse to pray the 2008 revision. There's no law against it. I counsel everyone simply to ignore the 2008 revision and pray from your beautiful Baronius (or earlier) handmissals as if nothing had happened.

The second option is to repair to an Eastern Catholic church on Good Friday. Perfectly legal; perfectly licit.

The third option is to repair to an S.S.P.X chapel for Good Friday. Thanks to the idiots who wrote the 1983 Code of Canons, this is also perfectly legal. Once again, the liberal loose laws, which one could drive a truck through, help traditionalists. Under the new Code, we can attend any Protestant service without restriction, as long as we fulfil the Sunday and holyday obligation at a Catholic church. But Good Friday is not a holyday of obligation! If we can attend even a Protestant Good Friday Service on that day and not go to a Catholic church at all, it follows that we can attend a S.S.P.X Good Friday service--and not go to a regularised Catholic church at all. Ironcially, this would not have been the case under the 1917 Code! Once again, the liberals prove to be not only malign but obtuse as well. It is such poetic justice that there bad new Code of Canons helps their enemies here.

The fourth option is to say the 1962 or 1955 words aloud in private prayer, including corporate private prayer with others. This could even be led by a priest and said in a church, or any other fitting place. But it could not include liturgical aspects of the Good Friday Service, such as moving the Blessed Sacrament to the Altar of repose. It would only be prayers.

Yes, we are bound by this new law. It is within the power and the right of the Pope to pass it. But it can be entirely ignored in practice by laics. The case of diocesan priests is more troubled. But, ironically, since the Jews seem to hate this 2008 revision, a diocesan priest assigned to traditionalists could say that he finds the 2008 prayer to be too unœcumenical; therefore, he counsels faithful to attend the N.O. version! How many bishops could counter that argument!

P.K.T.P.

schoolman said...

Maybe Tofari got a promotion. Last I heard he was a layman and webmaster for the SSPX in the US. The "SSPX General Secretary" used to be at headquarters with Fellay. In any case, the SSPX uses the 1962 missal (and all 1962 Missals contain the Holy Week revisions ordered by Pius XII in 1955). Any other talk of "pre-1955" stuff not contained in the 1962 missal is strictly one-off depending on the private initiative of priests and congregations acting on their own.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
PKTP GYOB
(Get yer own blog)

Spray your rad-trad graffiti on your own storefront.

How edifying. I must be dealing with one of those pseudo-traditionlist neo-conservatives. They are just liberals in slow motion. Another characteristic of them is their Protestant and Erastian misunderstanding of the nature of papal authority. It is plenary, not absolute. Plenary means completely adequate to fulfil its end, which is to save souls and build up the Mystical Body of Christ. Only those with a Protestant Erastian or Hobbesian mindset take the view that, if the Holy Father issues a command, we must blindly follow it in all circumstances. Nay, we shall even do more than the law demands and then insist that others--those who know better--do the same.

The Holy Father does not require us to use or receive the 2008 prayer. He only commands that diocesan priests assigned to traditionalist apostolates and who opt to offer the Good Friday Service use the new words in Latin. That's all.

What we pray silently to ourselves (if we decide to pray anything) is entirely up to us. Whether or not we attend a regularised Good Friday Service at all is entirely up to us. Whether or not we attend a S.S.P.X Good Friday Service--is entirely up to us.

So I say unto the neo-conservatives and the semi-traditionalists and the psedo-traditionalists on this blog: buzz off!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Please, please, please do not mention jesse jackson in the same breath when talking about the SSPX. I am pleading with you Anonymous 17:47.

Anonymous said...

So, to reiterate, we can simply pray the 1962 words while the priest intones the 2008 words in Latin. We are perfectly free to do so. The law allows it. The Pope does not (and, in this case, cannot) forbid it.

Therefore, I counsel everyone on this blog to refuse to receive or use the 2008 prayer. Simply use the one that will be in your shiny brand new handmissal.

P.K.T.P.

T Boyle said...

PKTP writes:

...Boyle doesn't see the connexions. He thinks that it all would have happened anyway, perhaps even more. It's a point of view.

I see a connection. And, as I said, the Holy See and the bishops of the Church would most likely have been much more forthcoming in granting freedom to the old Mass had the SSPX never existed. The SSPX and other fruitcakes and schismatics stigmatised the Mass by making it their banner.

As we look at your potted history, its clear that freedoms were granted over time. But they were granted with much trepidation and always with many restrictions. If the old Mass had become the banner of faithful obedient Catholics instead of these loons, there is no doubt the Holy See would have been much more forthcoming in accommodating their legitimate desires.

techno_aesthete said...

"One would have to be blind and deaf not to realise that the revision was a reaction to the Jewish complaints."

Perhaps, however someone suggested the possibility that BXVI revised the prayer to nullify the objections of Catholic bishops who are against the spirit and implementation of Summorum Pontificum. I submit that most of the Jews who have been whining about the prayer would not have known about it if some faithless bishops hadn't pointed it out in an effort to keep SP from seeing the light of day.

Benedict XVI is a more intelligent and complex person than some here are inclined to give him credit for. He neither apologized for nor took back what he said in his lecture at Regensburg. (He apologized for the reactions of some, but not for what he said.) Do you really think he was motivated to change it by non-Catholics?

Anonymous said...

Schoolman:

I don't know what your authority is for saying that they don't make an exception (or are not free to make one) for the Triduum Sacram.

My understanding is that, several years ago, the S.S.P.X conformed to the 1962 Missal (as a general norm). This happened, to my knowledge *afer* the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, and it caused the expulsion of some Society priests, including the semi-sedevacantist S.S.P.V. However, it is entirely possible that the Society bishops made an exception in the case of the Triduum Sacram, as Mr. Tofari claims, or that it tolerates an exception for those days.

I might be incorrect about when the 1962 books were imposed. I'm not a Society supporter and have never attended Mass at any of its chapels.

P.K.T.P.

Patrick Archbold said...

Wow. I get to this combox a little late and Mr. Perkins has already filled it up.

Anyway, this was a wonderful (and apparently missed) opportunity for the SSPX to display some humility. Whether they liked the revision or not, whether are legally obligated or not, the could have (and in my mind should have) shown some humility here and accepted it. Nobody can make the case that acceptance would have been sinful, and therefore humility and submission were the order of the day.

Hope that doesn't make me a pseudo-traditionalist neo-conservative liberal protestant in slow motion. I am glad we are all above name calling.

Anonymous said...

I just want to congratulate Baronius Press again for printing tens of thousands of 1962 handmissals for us. They came out just in time to avoid the 2008 Zionist revision to our Missal. I bought one myself only last week, and intend to buy a second one soon.

Thanks to Baronius Press, the vast majority of those attending the traditional Good Friday Prayers will not even be aware of the 2008 revision. Those beautiful little babies (the Missals) should last for decades. They are very well made. By the time a new edition is printed, it will be too late and we shall all have the tried and true and the words of the Third Century and not of 2008.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Acceptance of the revision is morally disordered. It becomes sinful if (and only if) the acceptors realise this and go ahead anyway.

Regardless of all the other arguments on this, the real problem is not and never has been the content of the prayer but the precendent it sets. Never before in the history of the Church has the Supreme Pontiff made a change to the Work of the Holy Ghost in the Sacred Liturgy *specifically* (note the emphasis) at the demand of infidels--infidels who do not even believe that there is a Holy Ghost.

To set a precedent by which the Sacred Liturgy is informed not by the Holy Ghost but by prayers composed to satisfy heretics or infidels is morally disordered. Once again, I am not saying that the Pope sinned. Only God knows his heart or his intent. But the act was objectively wrong. That is why we should refuse to receive or use the prayer.

It is true that the prayer is vastly inferior to the one it replaces, but that is not by problem with this. It is the precedent that this sets: that is why I will not accept the revision.

P.K.T.P.

Peter said...

I've attended my fair share of Holy Week liturgies in SSPX chapels over the years, including attending the full ceremonies at Econe a few years ago. To my knowledge they use the 1962 books. I remember at Econe even discussing the matter with the seminarians. Many of us felt that the ceremonies of the 1962 Holy Week were unfortunate, especially those parts requiring the celebrant to face the congregation for extended periods, the vernacular vows, unison spoken parts (rather than sung - all unison parts of the liturgy were traditionally sung hence no cacophony) and other clumsy intrusions.

Anonymous said...

I agree with techno_æsthete that the demand for the change came initially from liberal bishops who hate the old Mass and "Summorum Pontificum". In fact, I have argued that on other fora myself. However, the change itself would not have come had not the two chief rabbis of Palestine not written a joint formal and official letter to the Pope asking for a revision. These rabbis are well known to the Holy Father and have met with him before, both publicly and privately. There is just no way that the Pope would have changed the prayer had not the liberals in the Church managed to get Jewish leaders to demand it. A fortnight or so after having received the letter from Palestine, the Pope capitulated.

That's not acceptable. We shall have to obey the law as far as it goes, but it does not bind us to use that revision of a prayer that is 1,700 years old.

P.K.T.P.

Patrick Archbold said...

Mr. Perkins,
You yourself has said "it is a valid act of the Supreme Legislator". You are saying that all who accept this valid act are doing something "morally disordered?"

To accept a valid act of a rightful authority to pray a prayer that all agree there is nothing intrinsically wrong with simply because you do not like "why" you think that rightful authority might have made that change is morally disordered?

Mr. Perkins, respectfully, I think you overstate your case.

Michael said...

Aspects of the SSPX 'mentality' exhibit certain irrational tendencies coupled with a 'faith depleted of charity'.

In addition, this attack upon Peter related to Peter's God given responsibilities deserves no quarter inside the Roman Catholic Church. I don't think the Holy Spirit means for this open defiance that is often stated by contributers to this blog to be under the umbrella of Catholicism.

Their resentments wrapped in false pride gives them god-like judgemental qualities. They have become their own authority. However one hopes that the SSPX bishops can complain and submit. If not, keep on going. The Church gets enough of this from the Progressives.

Michael F Brennan
St Petersburg FL

Anonymous said...

Boyle writes:

"...Boyle doesn't see the connexions. He thinks that it all would have happened anyway, perhaps even more. It's a point of view.

I see a connection. And, as I said, the Holy See and the bishops of the Church would most likely have been much more forthcoming in granting freedom to the old Mass had the SSPX never existed. The SSPX and . . . stigmatised the Mass by making it their banner."

Come, come, Mr. Boyle. First of all, I can only see fruitcakes (and fruits) and schismatics celebrating Novus Ordo Masses, where, in my parish, they did not even use valid matter but did include sweetgrass wafting over parishioners who were sitting cross-legged on the floor.

Come, come, Mr. Boyle. Consider the facts more carefully. On 3 October, 1984, the Holy See issued the Instruction entitled "Quattuor Abinc Annos". It would never have come in the first place had not the S.S.P.X grown exponentially from 1976 to 1984 (a growth not matched by it in the last two decades). You think that the bishops would have been receptive? According to its authors (vide its preamble), it was issued because the local bishops had reported to Rome that the New Mass was being universally received with joy. But the Congregation for Liturgy and the Sacraments was not convinced! Only a fool would have been convinced by that!

Now, the bishops had the perfect opportunity to apply Q.A.A. in order, at least, to cripple attachment to the S.S.P.X. But did they? Of the over 2,000 dioceses in the Western Hemisphere, only NINE implemented Q.A.A. before its extension under "Ecclesia Dei" in 1988.

No, Mr. Boyle, everything we have we have because of the Society's intransigence. You have absolutely no evidence to the contrary. The bishops were allowing and mostly promoting the worst liturgical abuses imaginable. Quite often, they even acted illegally to do so (e.g. permission for Communion in the hand years before it was allowed). And you think that, had there been no S.S.P.X, that crowd would have been open to tradition?

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. That goes for absolutely everyone.

P.K.T.P.

David Anthony Domet said...

D0 YOU PEOPLE LISTEN TO YOURSELVES?

DO ANY OF YOU HAVE AN OUNCE OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY TOWARDS ONE ANOTHER?

KYRIE ELEISON, CHISTE ELEISON, KYRIE ELEISON!

Anonymous said...

Michael writes:

"In addition, this attack upon Peter related to Peter's God given responsibilities deserves no quarter inside the Roman Catholic Church. I don't think the Holy Spirit means for this open defiance that is often stated by contributers to this blog to be under the umbrella of Catholicism."

I'm not sure what Michael is referring to--or to whom. The Holy Father has not bound us to use or receive this prayer. Therefore, how does anyone disobey by now using it? Michael seems to be one of those hyper-conservative papolaters who will always do more than the law requires just to prove how loyal he is to legitimate authority. But when something is bad, we should not do it for that reason. We should respectfully decline to do more than the law requires.

P.K.T.P.

schoolman said...

"My understanding is that, several years ago, the S.S.P.X conformed to the 1962 Missal (as a general norm). This happened, to my knowledge *afer* the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, and it caused the expulsion of some Society priests, including the semi-sedevacantist S.S.P.V."
======================

My impression is that you are probably a "newbie" to tradition pretending to be an authority on all things "traditional". I have been around long enough to know what I am talking about on this point.

Anonymous said...

Archbold writes:

"You yourself has said 'it is a valid act of the Supreme Legislator'. You are saying that all who accept this valid act are doing something 'morally disordered?'"

No, I am saying that it was morally disordered (but not necessarily sinful) for the Pope to make the change, and for the reason I gave. However, the change is a valid act of the Supreme Legislator, since the new prayer is not evil in itself and the Pope has the power and the right to make it. The fact that the reason for the change was morally disordered does not mean that the change itself is morally disordered. The revision itself is entirely Catholic.

The reason that we can accept it as a valid act is partly BECAUSE it does not require us to receive or use the prayer: it does not bind us to use it. (In fact, the Pope cannot bind us to use a private prayer in any event.)

We must still accept that this revision is valid, but that only means that we cannot insist that diocesan priests use the 1962 words instead of the 2008 revision; and we cannot have cause for complaint if other laics insist that the priest uses the 2008 revision.

P.K.T.P.

Patrick Archbold said...

Mr Perkins,

What you said was "Acceptance of the revision is morally disordered"

You stated that acceptance is disordered. This obviously does not apply to the Pope but rather to the clergy and laity who "accept" it. If you wish to retract this statement, so be it, but I did not misunderstand it.

I don't wish to belabor the point but it is important that we keep the debate honest.

Anonymous said...

Braadwijk,

You're just a half-witted legal positivist (and typical product of counter-Reformation spirituality).

Get Stuffed.

Anonymous said...

"If you do not, you are a schismatic. If you are a priest..."

Stop your home-spun nonsense.

Anonymous said...

:In addition, this attack upon Peter related to Peter's God given responsibilities deserves no quarter inside the Roman Catholic Church. I don't think the Holy Spirit means for this open defiance that is often stated by contributers to this blog to be under the umbrella of Catholicism.

Their resentments wrapped in false pride gives them god-like judgemental qualities. They have become their own authority. However one hopes that the SSPX bishops can complain and submit. If not, keep on going. The Church gets enough of this from the Progressives."

Brennan,

You're an idiot schooled in typical counter-Reformation legal positivism. You seem to think that makes you a doctor of law.

The pre-reformation church had an excellent means of dealing with fools like you: they either lynched you, or burned you as a heretic.

Anonymous said...

P.K.T.P., you are an astonishing troll. Do you know what a troll is? Clearly not, given your impoverished sense of combox etiquette. Do you have a PhD in liturgical studies? Are you a Bishop? Unless you possess such credentials, DO NOT respond to every other persons' comment! I hope your manners are better in real life, or you will probably make a beautiful and sublime rite abhorrent to many earnest people on account of your absurd behavior.

That goes also for the other vitriolic buffoons unfortunately present.

OK, everyone, let us say it together:

"DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!"

Anonymous said...

"P.K.T.P., you are an astonishing troll. Do you know what a troll is? Clearly not, given your impoverished sense of combox etiquette. Do you have a PhD in liturgical studies? Are you a Bishop? Unless you possess such credentials, DO NOT respond to every other persons' comment! I hope your manners are better in real life, or you will probably make a beautiful and sublime rite abhorrent to many earnest people on account of your absurd behavior.

That goes also for the other vitriolic buffoons unfortunately present."

I am not P.K.T.P. but you are an astonishing idiot.

I am a lowyer, and unlike you, know what I am talking about.

For the church to recover from the present crisis, an inquisition to reduce fools like you to wind-blown ash is necessary.

Anonymous said...

We use our intellect and resaoning when we approcah our Faith. Or do we regard the liturgy as Protestants do the Bible. It fell from heaven with no human hands involved. Those of you who have problem with the changes to the prayer for the conversion of the Jews. You are wrong. The issue is not change. The issue is the extent and reason for change. The Mass of the Roman Rite differs from the other Rites. This is because it is the fruit of many centuries of refining and organic reform under the guidance of the HOLY SPIRIT. All being built on the order and customs left by Pter and Paul in Rome. The New Mass is faulty in that it is NOT the product of this process. It is a new creation that drastically and inexcusably destroys all that went before.
This change to the Good FRiday prayers ir organic and IS within the authority of the Pope. The antiquity of the prayer is another issue. SSPX say 3rd century I read 6th century.
This is an authentic decision of he Pope and Unless you all want to deny Vatican 1 (not Vat11) You had better stop this protest and refusal to hear. Listen and get over it!

Anonymous said...

"I am a lowyer"

Wow, clearly your inordinate passions are clouding your pristine spelling, carefully honed at your prestigious law school (I'm sure).

Suggestion: Turn off the computer, go and have a nice, long scotch--take the rest of the night off...

Anonymous said...

whoops, didn't mean to feed the trolls....

Curmudgeon said...

I have had a nice, long scotch (which, considering my lenten fast, has had a very rapid effect), and I have only one thing to say, and that's to David Anthony Domet:

David, you said, "...KYRIE ELEISON, CHISTE ELEISON, KYRIE ELEISON!"

Actually, David, that should be...
KYRIE ELEISON, KYRIE ELEISON,
KYRIE ELEISON, CHRISTE ELEISON, CHRISTE ELEISON, CHRISTE ELEISON, KYRIE ELEISON, KYRIE ELEISON, KYRIE ELEISON, KYRIE ELEISON.
."

Braadwijk said...

Well, I see the ad hominem attacks are flaring up again here. I'm a half-witted legal positivist with home-spun nonsense? Nice how you just fling that out and end it without pointing out how or why. It usually means you've lost the debate.

Since priests are judged more harshly than laity, they are more strongly tempted and it is in fact worse for them when they sin. This is why we must remember to keep them especially close in our prayers. I don't see how any Catholic who claims to be "traditional" would even consider arguing that one.

The SSPX got precisely what it wanted from the Vatican with regards to the Mass. The Vatican has stated officially, on the Pope's own initiative, that the Mass was never abrogated and every priest and lay person in the world has a right to it regardless of what the bishop has to say about this. If they wish to see the Mass as part of the Church's main life again, they must accept the Pope as the Church's supreme liturgist. This is not something up for debate. It is the deposit of faith. Mr. Perkins, everybody is bound to this. The Pope, and he alone, issues what Missal priests will use detailing how they will say Mass, whether or not they like it that way. If the SSPX wants to use a different Missal to get out of this or blatantly disobey, they are flirting on real schism and doing Tradition no favor.

The Pope does not have the authority to issue something validly which is morally disordered, which you just claimed he did. Please clarify this. You are the legal Pharisee on this issue who refuses to go beyond the call of duty to actually think with the Church, a concept which is very traditional indeed. Check your catechism, Mr. Perkins. Going beyond the obligation of the law is something known as charity.

It's also my observation on this blog that many Americans associated with the SSPX are completely out of league with the SSPX in Europe and elsewhere. It would honestly not surprise me if the SSPX in Europe used exclusively the 1962 books, as Europeans tend to be far more rational on these things and do not let their emotions or sense of pride rule them. I stick by my point on this. I wonder what would happen if many American SSPX'ers went to Mass in Econe and saw women in pants without chapel veils.

Ian said...

Schoolman and PKTP,

The SSPX, by decree of the General House, uses the 1955 edition of the Ordo Hebdomodæ Sanctæ (OHS). This is the Holy Week ceremonies as revised by Pope Pius XII.

The Holy Week Ceremonies that correspond to the 1962 Missal are not identical to the 1955 OHS, but are very similar.

In 1959, Pope John XXIII removed the words perfidis and perfidam from the Prayer for the Jews. In 1960 there were very minor rubrical changes.

The SSPX retains only a few very minor parts of the pre-1955 Holy Week. One example: On Palm Sunday, the 1955 Books indicate that the hymn Gloria Laus is sung during the procession. The SSPX keep the earlier order which has this hymn sung alternately between a choir inside the Church and outside during which the Cross-bearer knocks on the doors of the Church with the base of the cross and the doors are open. Since there is no mandate to use the exact order in the 1955 books, this is a legitimate retention.

Mr. Tofari, who is the Secretary for the U.S. District Office of the SSPX, and is indeed a layman, but who does actually know something about the Liturgy and the practice of the SSPX, is correct.

Summary: The SSPX uses, essentially the 1955 Holy Week. This is not the same as the 1962 Holy Week, although it is very similar. Arguably the "nota" does not apply to the SSPX because they do not fall under the juridical provisions of Summorum Pontificum and they do not use the 1962 books for Holy Week.

Q.E.D.

Anonymous said...

Braadwijk seems to be disagreeing with me, and yet his words do not conflict with mine, if he'd check. Charity can mean going beyond the letter of the law but that does not mean that every time we go beyond it, our action is charitable. Obviously, doing what is bad for the Church simply to show our loyalty to a pope who has erred is not charity at all.

I have never doubted that the Pope is the supreme liturgist of the Church; nor has the S.S.P.X. We keep going round and round in circles because people keep misinterpreting my words. The Pope does not oblige laics to use the new words; therefore, we do not disobey by refusing to use them. Yet again, for the hundredth time now, the case of priests is different. However, diocesan priests, while they can no longer use the 1962 prayer, they can still avoid the 2008 prayer by refusing to offer any Good Friday Service at all. It is within their rights under the law to do so.

I am the one who is defending the laws of the Church here. I am up against papolaters who think that they have to force others to go beyond the law in order for those others to prove that they are Catholic.

On the matter of the moral disorder, a post of mine DOES explain the situation you mention. The action of the Pope was disordered. However, since the new prayer itself is certainly Catholic, and since the Pope had the right and the power to enact it, it is not disordered for people to obey it. That is perfectly logical.

My point is that, while we must obey the new law, that does not mean that we must use or receive the new prayer--and we should not. Obeying the new law, in this case, only means that we cannot insist that a diocesan priest use the 1962 words. Period.

Quod erat demonstrandum

As for the rude poster with his rant about manners, he should get some himself. But I won't bother more about someone who resorts to screaming in print.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Patrick Archbold, quoting me, said,

"What you said was 'Acceptance of the revision is morally disordered'"

Yes, acceptance of the new prayer is morally disordered, but acceptance of the valid law regarding this prayer is not morally disordered. Therein lies the solution to this.

We must accept the law itself, for it is validly promulgated and the prayer it institutes is per se Catholic. But accepting the law does not mean accepting the prayer itself; that is, we need not receive or use the prayer.

What does it mean to accept the law but not the prayer? I have explained this is detail. First, we can no longer lawfully insist that a priest use the 1962 words at a Good Friday Service. We lose that right and I must accept this.

Second, we have no cause of complaint if another laic insists that a diocesan priest use the 2008 revision. We must remain silent because we must accept the validity of the law.

But we need not accept the prayer itself, meaning that we need not use it or even read it. I have explained in detail how we can avoid doing so.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

"If they wish to see the Mass as part of the Church's main life again, they must accept the Pope as the Church's supreme liturgist. This is not something up for debate. It is the deposit of faith."

Where do get this notion that the pope as the supreme liturgist is part of the deposit of faith?

You are misrepresenting the faith.

Besides, when the Milanese resisted the attempts of Nicholas II to impose the Roman Rite, were they sinning against the faith?

If so, the church has defected, for the church has concluded that Nicholas II was wrong and the Milanese were right.

If not, it shows that we have a right to disobey the pope in liturgical matters in the appropriate circumstances.

This illicit extension of papal infallibility is one of the most dangerous heresies, and is ultimately a form of subjectivism.

It's just further evidence that those whom Satan can't win to himself through modernism, he'll try to capture with other means, i.e., Jansenism, papalatry...

Anonymous said...

This blog is getting out of hand!

Moretben said...

First of all, those ready to bandy about accusations of “pride” or “cowardice” (whether it’s the Pope they’re accusing, or those unsettled by this latest development) are pretending, pharisaically, to a perspective on other people’s hearts and consciences to which they are absolutely not entitled. Such accusations are rash, foolish, self-serving and utterly pointless.

At the heart of this question is the ill-conceived liturgical reform imposed upon the Church from the middle of the last century by the Popes and the bishops, a top-down disaster so all-encompassing as to have wrecked the peace and unity of the Church and compromised the stability of fundamental doctrine, which, because of the relationship of prayer to belief, no amount of corrective material or good intentions will serve adequately to support.

This can mean one of only two things:

- The Roman Church has failed, its self-understanding having proved false.
- The relationship of the magisterium to the objective tradition has, during the course of the second mllenium, drifted so badly out of balance that only a chastening trial (a disaster in waiting), perhaps over several generations, can correct it.

That’s all. It’s not merely a consequence of bad people on one side or the other acting out of bad intentions – no doubt such people exist, as they always have, and always will: that is precisely the context of the divine promises to the Church – but of something which has caused good people who love the Church to act and think in a disastrous way. What is absolutely certain – what history has conclusively demonstrated - is that reducing the content and meaning of objective Tradition to Tu es Petrus et super hanc petrum is the problem, not the solution.

Anonymous said...

"the middle of the last century by the Popes and the bishops..."

Actually, it goes back earlier than that - in the late 19th c, the archdiocese of Cologne had a perfectly licit and ancient form of the Roman Rite, somewhat like the Sarum, and typical of the northen European versions of the missal that obtained before Trent.

Out of pious but misplaced zeal - to put the most charitable interpretation of events - that diocesan usage was suppressed in favour of the Roman liturgical books.

Also, someone once said that the adulation of the pope that was so common before the council was simply the ecclesiastical analogue of the secular nationalism of the 19th century.

A traditionalist against compulsory priestly celibacy (Hello New Catholic!!!)

Anonymous said...

" The Roman Church has failed, its self-understanding having proved false.
- The relationship of the magisterium to the objective tradition has, during the course of the second mllenium, drifted so badly out of balance that only a chastening trial (a disaster in waiting), perhaps over several generations, can correct it."

It's the second, not the first, and the counter-reformation is responsibe (primarily through the agency of the Jesuits, but not only the SJ's). See G. Hull's "The Banished Heart".

Anonymous said...

I think it is DISGRACEFUL that several persons should verbally abuse the person of the Holy Father, the vicar of Christ. Youmay or may not agree with him in this matter, but you still must be obedient. The faith is not at stake. In fact, the pope has re-affirmed the traditional teaching of the Church by the new prayer for the Jews. To treat the pope in such a way is contrary to the true Catholic spirit.

Braadwijk said...

Papalatry?! Promulgating something validly that is Catholic but at the same time morally disordered?! You guys will come up with any name in the book and make the most fantastics leaps of logic to avoid actually talking about the issue!

The Pope as the Church's supreme liturgist is a direct part of Petrine Primacy. His decisions will never contradict the Faith, but that doesn't mean they can always be prudent. However, these people still have yet to demonstrate why the Pope's decision was a bad one and that he even did to please the Jews at all. As a scientist, I don't buy vague correlations. If he did this to please the Jews, let's hear it from his mouth. Until such time, it is shameful for you to make this accusation without any hard proof to back it.

You have a golden opportunity here to make up for the last 40 years, chiefly because the current Pontiff also agrees. The SSPX runs the serious risk of outliving its usefulness if they continue to play these games with the Holy See.

LeonG said...

It is characteristic of many "anonymous" comments here either to be completely ignorant based on subjective uninformed speculation or perhaps founded on perverse optimism that SSPX will fall.

However, they are totally wrong. SSPX is a major player in this issue of The Holy Sacrifice of The Mass in Latin. They have proceeded with utmost respect toward the person of the Holy Father - much more than many of the contributors here & elsewhere. Their decision is consistent with their position and with the book of The Holy Mass they support. The issue of Latin Mass against long-anathematised "vernacular only" services has only relatively started. It is a liturgical combat that will oust the synthetic protestantised edition and restore authentic Roman Catholic liturgy. When Padre Pio exclaimed that the earth could survive more easily without the sun than without The Holy Mass he meant The Latin Mass - not the "vernacular only" mutant which has objectively proven to be absolute anathema to The Roman Catholic Faith. SSPX is strategically bound up with this combat. It is a fight to the death. This issue as with most controversial ones that have occurred since the 1960s demonstrates a church inside of which the enemy is perpetrating every subterfuge to defeat The Church of The Christ but he will not succeed.

And the enemy? - look for who scattereth and who doth not gather with The Lord. Those who are against Him are not for Him.

thetimman said...

Schoolman, I want to thank you for your very cogent and persuasive comments throughout this thread.

Ian, I think the point that the SSPX uses the 1955 changes for Holy Week out of obedience to the Supreme Legislator, despite the fact that it questions the wisdom of such changes, is the endgame for them on this one.

Because the two actions are completely indistinguishable. Holy Week is "restored"--badly-- but as it is not doctrinally erroneous and is not sinful to pray the SSPX submits. The Good Friday prayer is revised-- assume, arguendo, badly-- but as it is not doctrinally erroneous and is not sinful to pray they must submit.

Any other conclusion is illogical, and puts the society in a very hard to justify position.

Adriano Fernando da Silva Araújo said...

This regret is not necessary to restoratin. The essence of prayer for jewish is maintain. The SSPX is walking to dificult the agree.

Moretben said...

the two actions are completely indistinguishable. Holy Week is "restored"--badly-- but as it is not doctrinally erroneous and is not sinful to pray the SSPX submits. The Good Friday prayer is revised-- assume, arguendo, badly-- but as it is not doctrinally erroneous and is not sinful to pray they must submit.

Any other conclusion is illogical, and puts the society in a very hard to justify position.


Exactly.

Ager Flandriae said...

P.K.T.P.'s logic concerning priests being bound by the new prayer is absolutely correct. And, as he correctly stated, one can pray at the Sacred Liturgy as a laic in any way that is in harmony with it, including praying the former prayer.

However, I take umbrage with the *intention* behind refusing to pray the new prayer. To categorically refuse to pray the new prayer on one's own at the Good Friday liturgy, simply because one dislikes it, betrays an attitude of refusing to think and pray with the Church. This is something which is very serious, and is an attitude rooted in pride.

It bears repeating that the Benedictine prayer is ENTIRELY theologically sound. It is equally as Biblical and Pauline as the former prayer, and prays for the exact same thing as the former prayer.

Patrick said...

It sure is nice to be "traditional" and "orthodox" and then make yourself and your organization the final arbitor. Oh wait, that is the Pope's role for Catholics. Too bad SPXX.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

"It bears repeating that the Benedictine prayer is ENTIRELY theologically sound. It is equally as Biblical and Pauline as the former prayer, and prays for the exact same thing as the former prayer."

What you forget is that behind this "change" lays a clear message that the Pope can and probably will revise the Tridentine Missal. With what outcome? With that of imbuing it with the Conciliar theology.

The Pope is not God! Yes, tell that to Benedict. The era of the Popes-Emperors is not over.

Anonymous said...

Ager Flandriæ writes:

However, I take umbrage with the *intention* behind refusing to pray the new prayer. To categorically refuse to pray the new prayer on one's own at the Good Friday liturgy, simply because one dislikes it, betrays an attitude of refusing to think and pray with the Church. This is something which is very serious, and is an attitude rooted in pride.


You do not have a window into my soul either! I do not refuse to use it becasue of pride but because of love for the Church! I have explained why I refuse to use it; I have given sound reasons. I am rejecting not the revised prayer per se but the reason for its composition and the precedent that might set. It is not appropriate that a Pope should revise a 1,700 year old prayer specifically at the behest of heretics.


I commend this writer, however, at least for reading what I was arguing and seeing that it is true that we are not bound to use the prayer during the Good Friday Service. So many posters here do not seem to understand this.

P.K.T.P.

Ager Flandriae said...

Wow.

I cannot believe what I am reading from Catholics who call themselves traditionalists - phrases such as "monsters like Pius X and Pius XII."

I can't imagine even the most vitriolic enemies of Holy Mother Church referring to SAINT Pius X as a "monster."

Yes, we can and should expect changes in the Extraordinary Form, because changes happened constantly from 19 July 1570 up until 1962. To say the contrary is to be ignorant of history.

Anonymous said...

In regard to the timman:

I won't contest this argument. However, it remains the case that, according to the Nota, only the 1962 text has been revised. Those not using the 1962 text, therefore, are not bound by the Nota.

Of course, this does lead us to another debate, which is by what right the S.S.P.X uses the pre-1955 texts. But that is an entirely different subject.

It is sufficient to imagine here that Rome might have allowed a regularised group to use the pre-1955 texts. Had she done so, the Nota would not apply.

I'd rather not get in to the issues of supplied jurisdiction for the S.S.P.X and the rôle of customary law in Society chapels. That could be a minefield.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Braadwijk writes:

Braadwijk said...
"Papalatry?! Promulgating something validly that is Catholic but at the same time morally disordered?! You guys will come up with any name in the book and make the most fantastics leaps of logic to avoid actually talking about the issue!"

Once again, one must distinguish between the law itself and the reason for changing the prayer. One can be morally disordered (here, the second) while the other is not, as I have explained very precisely already. It is you who will not address the argument, not me.

We do not have to 'hear it from the Pope's mouth' to have a reasonable opinion about his motives. Have you been reading your Jone? What degree of certitude is needed here? If the two chief rabbis of Palestine write a formal request and the Pope acts in accordance with this a fortnight later, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that there is a connexion, especially given Benedict XVI's very direct dealings with these rabbis in the past. Of course, only God can have *absolute* certitude about anything, unless He confers that on others, but we are allowed a far lesser degree in making judgements about facts.

Moreover, there is a precept that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. In other words, a well-advised Pontiff would have taken into account the appearance of acting after receiving the letter, a letter which was sent as a public act. (This, by the way, leads us to another interesting question: Why did the rabbis alert the international press that they had sent this letter? Just a thought.)

No offence intended at all, but it's time to get real. He bowed down to the two chief rabbis of Palestine and changed the Work of the Holy Ghost, our Sacred Catholic Liturgy, to appease infidels who don't even believe that there is a Holy Ghost. The fact that he failed to please them is hardly the point.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

One poster here referred to Pope [St.] Pius X and Pope Pius XII as "monsters". I wonder if the moderator of this blog considers this to be acceptable?

I am confident that the great majority of posters on both sides of this debate will agree that a sainted Pope and one being considered for canonisation should not be referred to as "monsters".

The great Archbishop Lefebvre was right when he said that the greatest friends of the people were the traditionalists.

We 'tradicals' know where the real hatred lies: it lies mostly with the brother-love smiley liberals--who call a saint a monster.

P.K.T.P.

New Catholic said...

Actually, it was Saint Pius himself who said that the greatest friends of the people are the Traditionalists (Notre Charge Apostolique).

It is naturally hard to moderate these very popular comment boxes, so we have to count on your help to remove egregious comments.

Braadwijk said...

Mr. Perkins, given the way things run in the Vatican (and in Italy in general), I highly doubt the Holy Father just decided to "write up" a new prayer after receiving those letters. These people were complaining long before they ever sent those letters. They've been complaining since last summer before the Motu was even published. They alerted the international press about what they did becacuse they knew it was a hot-button issue and would get attention. You are trying to back up a correlation which you cannot use to justify your argument, so you then accuse the Pope of not acting prudently enough in the matter once he had received these letters. The Vatican should pay no attention to the cries of protest from the unbeliever, but should suddenly care about its appearance to an unbelieving world out of "justice"? This is astounding. It goes right back to what I stated earlier. People will hop from one issue to another and always find a new point of which to be critical simply to maintain their rebellion.

"The Pope didn't have the authority to do this! This is outrageous and a slap in the face to Tradition! Well he only applied it to the 1962 Missal, and even then only clerics. I don't have to do it anyways and you can't make me! Well, even if he did it lawfully and there's nothing objectionable this is just his way of appeasing the Jews! (EVIL GREEDY PERFIDIOUS *facial twitch* JEWS!!!) How dare he! This act is morally disordered, so I'm not going to say it anyways! I can't get it from his mouth, so now I'm worried about the way this looks for the Vatican! I just can't give my support to this kind of public image fiasco and lack of justice, so I'm not going to say it anyways!" This is essentially where we're going with this.

You people are not unlike the Jews yourselves. God sends you what you've been waiting for and you place the veil over your hearts because it wasn't quite what you expected, so you don't want it. I'm sorry Benedict isn't the raging warrior Pope executing heretics publicly in St. Peter's Square and beating bishops into submission until they haul all the Catholics of the world back from the Novus Ordo. As much fun as that would be for all of us, we aren't Muslims and the Church is not a Sharia kangaroo court.

Anonymous said...

The SSPX's refusal of this change is really no more surprising than its refusal of the Novus Ordo. The Novus Ordo and the change of the Good Friday prayer are both simply reforms of a Missal. Various traditionalists, including the SSPX, will continue saying the 1962 prayer. This continuation will be "indulted" either formally or informally. Then, perhaps 40 years down the road, a Pope will issue another Summorum Pontificum "re-restoring" the 1962 missal in its entirety. And once again, the Church will owe the SSPX for holding the fort down during a time of "diabolical disorientation" in the midst of attacks from without.

Anonymous said...

Right. Just as the TLM was never abrogated and eventually Rome had to cave and admit it, so will they eventually have to cave to all the trad demands - including the abrogation of the Novus Ordo toy mass - because their alternatives all fail. They're running out of priests, running out of mass attendees, running out of churches, and running out of liturgical competence. You're losing, progressives, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Anonymous said...

"I think this is just a classic example of the SSPX being too far gone to really bother with these days."

That's idiotic: plenty of Orthodox believers in communion with Rome use different liturgies and prayers, but when it comes to SSPX, somehow different standards apply

Anonymous said...

Braadwijk says:

"Mr. Perkins, given the way things run in the Vatican (and in Italy in general), I highly doubt the Holy Father just decided to "write up" a new prayer after receiving those letters. These people were complaining long before they ever sent those letters. They've been complaining since last summer before the Motu was even published. They alerted the international press about what they did becacuse they knew it was a hot-button issue and would get attention. You are trying to back up a correlation which you cannot use to justify your argument, so you then accuse the Pope of not acting prudently enough in the matter once he had received these letters."

You are not being reasonable, Braadwijk. Look, first the liberals in the Church started this and tried to get Jewish support. They eventually got lots of it. We all heard the screams of Abraham Flotsam of the A.D.L., for example. But I doubt that a reigning Ponfiff was going to stoop down and change our liturgy to appease the likes of him.

The two chief rabbis of Palestine have legal authority there, one over the Ashkenazi,the other over the Shephardim. They are the closest things the Jews have to an authority, for they have lawful standing in many religious matters in the State there.

They are also well known to the Pope and met with him jointly in the Vatican, both publicly and privately. I have seen photographs on line of their visits. H.H. has very cordial relations with them.

They wrote a formal joint letter of request and informed the press that they had sent it. A fortnight later, the Pope changed the prayer.

Please have the guts to be honest with yourself and with others. Obviously, the Pope changed the prayer in reaction to their plea, even if this was reinforced to appease other infidels who were demanding the same thing.

The fact that few conservative Jews like the change is beside the point.

At least be reasonable here and admit that my interpretation of the facts here is sensible.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Braadwijk writes:

"objectionable this is just his way of appeasing the Jews! (EVIL GREEDY PERFIDIOUS *facial twitch* JEWS!!!) How dare he! This act is morally disordered, so I'm not going to say it anyways! I can't get it from his mouth, so now I'm worried about the way this looks for the Vatican! I just can't give my support to this kind of public image fiasco and lack of justice, so I'm not going to say it anyways!" This is essentially where we're going with this."

I wonder whose face is *really* twitching. Certainly not mine! Perhaps it is the liberal poster's who called the only sainted Pope in four handred years a "monster".

As usual, you mischaracterise my reaction entirely. By the way, there can be any number of reasons for refusing to use the 2008 prayer and staying with the 1962 one, which we have every right to do. Some might prefer a prayer that has 1,700 years of use behind it, as being more venerable than one concocted ad hoc in 2008 over two or three weeks. Others might note that the 1962 words were better Latin (given the piling up of the ut clause in the new one). Others, like me, out of love for Holy Church (face twitching and all), simply do not want the precious gift of our Sacred Liturgy to be amended at the demand of those whose faces really are twitching in their hatred of us. Read Gitten 57a and Sanhedrin 106a. These are the spiritual descendants of those who said, Let His blood be upon us and our children forever'. May it be a laver of mercy unto them!

P.K.T.P.

P.S. Incidentally, I expect all these papolaters of the list to now turn their attention to the Talmud and demand that the Jews revise it. For example, in one place, of us Christians, the text reads, "May God strike them all dead". But what their text has to say about Jesus and Mary is unprintable.

Zarquoniox Legshank said...

The Angelus Press is selling 1962 Sacred Triduum missals for those who "do not have a 1958 or later missal which contains the revised rite of Holy Week of Pope Pius XII":

http://www.angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/8029/sacred-triduum-missal

If it's the case that the SSPX actually uses the pre-Pian Triduum, then this is rather curious. Perhaps one of resident Petrophobes could explain.

Anonymous said...

So now Benedict is called an Anti-Semite! That is about as hurtful as you guys can get!

j hughes dunphy said...

"Roma locuta, causa finita!"
'Beware of those who strain the knat and swallow the camel.' These are the words of Our Divine Teacher Himself. This prayer revision was motivated solely out of charity and pope Benedict's command of Catholic orthodoxy on the liturgy is second to none. Who can object to his "motu proprio"? Who in their correct understanding of the history of Roman Catholicism cannot also agree? God bless us all!
j hughes dunphy
http://www.orthodoxromancatholic.com

Anonymous said...

J. Hughes Dunphy said

"This prayer revision was motivated solely out of charity."

With the greatest respect to Mr. Dunphy, neither he nor anyone knows what all the motives of the Holy Father were. We don't have a window in the Pope's soul or anyone else's. I have never suggested that the Pope intended anything wrong. This is not about the Pope's moral state but about what he did and whether or not this has been good for the Church, which we are all called to love. It must grieve any good Catholic when the Pope does something that harms the Church. Setting a precedent by which the complaints of infidels cause the text of the Liturgy to change is not good for the Church. I am not suggesting that the Pope intended to harm Holy Church but only that that has been the outcome.

One listmember referred to Petrophobes. That's definitely not I. A hater of Peter could not be a Catholic; Catholics don't hate anyone. Of course, some popes are loved more than others are. I rather like Benedict XVI, partly because of what he is doing for sacred music in the Church.

But I think that it is papolatry to jump on the papal bandwagon and enthusiastically agree with everything a pope does just because he is Peter. Even the best of us makes major mistakes from time to time. We are not bound to believe that every prudential decision of a pope is good, and we are certainly not bound to do more than the law requires. In filial obedience, we are sometimes even bound to express our concerns, as long as we do so respectfully.

Benedict XVI did a wonderful thing when he published "Summorum Pontificum", and he is doing a wonderful thing in the Church by his liturical and musical examples. Moreover, I think that he will go further still. For example, while they are keeping mum about it, the curia is currently working on a revision of the N.O.M.; it is also, I think, considering abolishing Communion in the hand.

I thank him deeply for the efforts he is making to reconcile the S.S.P.X and the TAC. May God bless our wonderful Pope. But those who truly do love him will not applaud those of his actions which they believe to be very egregious errors (e.g. the very bad seminary document he signed). Real love is honest by definition.

P.K.T.P.

Curmudgeon said...

"a Pope will issue another Summorum Pontificum 're-restoring' the 1962 missal in its entirety."

Let's hope not. Instead let's have an "organic change" by gradually and quietly moving back to the '45. Then that one can be indulted, if you wish.

Anonymous said...

David Alexander seems to think that we need to conduct a scientific examination to see if the Pope's action on the prayer is causally connected to the publicly-announced letter of the chief rabbis of Rome. He points out that the Pope's alteration of the prayer a fortnight later was not necessarily a reaction to this letter, citing the 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacy. Many people who cite that one seem to imagine the opposite: the a second event could not possibly be a reaction to a prior one.

Of course, some of us are aware of the differing degrees of certitude needed to believe a proposition. If we needed absolute certitude for everything, we'd be unable to get to work in the morning. After all, my car might have been stolen from someone else before I bought it. I'm not absolutely certain that it wasn't.

The chief rabbis of Palestine have met Benedict XVI on several occasions, both publicly and privately, and they are the closest thing the masortes have to an international authority, since they have legal power over the Jewish religion in the Holy Land. They are also said to have very cordial relations with the Pope and have exchanged gifts with him. They issued a joint official letter asking the Pope to change the prayer. A fortnight later, he did so. The Pope was also aware of the public perception of the timing of his publication, since the rabbis gave public notice of their letter and its general content.

Some people might argue that the two events are completely unrelated. We usually say of such people that they have no common sense and no judgement, however able they may be at performing calculative operations.

Of course, it's possible that the Pope simply felt that the 1962 Liturgy needed a change to make it a 'living tradition' and that he did not even notice the formal and official letter from the rabbis, or did not consider it for a second. He simply flipped open the 1962 Missal and leafed through it until a page fell. Lo and behold, it was the page having on it the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews!

Amazing!

P.K.T.P.

Braadwijk said...

Mr. Perkins,


I appreciate that you consider other alternative possibilities, but you still resort to ad hominem arguments to hammer through your point. As much as do not need absolute certainty to believe all things, you're still missing your smoking gun. You have your theory and your evidence but nothing linking them. You also still fail to consider the counter evidence to the matter, chiefly that Benedict advocated updating the '62 Missal long before he was Pope, long before SP, and that every year around Good Friday the Jews get uppity about the Church's position anyway. For all your musings, you still fail to answer the original question by jumping from one issue to another.

William Ross said...

Once again, the SSPX shows it is schismatic. The definition of schismatic is refusal of obedience to the Pope. They will not change the prayer, ergo, they are schismatics. When we will stop playing games, people? When will we call a spade a spade? The SSPX has separated itself from Eternal Rome and thus is like the publican and tax collector, anathema. God have mercy on their souls.

And for those of you who have just the stupidest and most scandalous, outrageous things to say (the Pope is a coward, this about money), get a clue and have a filial heart for once in your lives. Lord have mercy!

orion421 said...

Anonymous, your personal attack againt the Pope is the typical ignorance of the authority the Pope has as the Vicar of Christ. By the way ...only a coward would say that about our Pope. Have a nice day :)

Anonymous said...

Braadwijk writes:

'You also still fail to consider the counter evidence to the matter, chiefly that Benedict advocated updating the '62 Missal long before he was Pope, long before SP, and that every year around Good Friday the Jews get uppity about the Church's position anyway. For all your musings, you still fail to answer the original question by jumping from one issue to another."


It is you, Braadwijk, who has inadequate evidence. The Jews were uppity every year around Good Friday? Not so. I have been following news on our movement very carefully since the 1970s. There was *no* outcry over the years before publication until this year, when the publication of S.P. generated the controversy. You are completely wrong. In fact, when this outcry erupted, many Catholic commentators asked precisely why it was that the Jews ignored the 1962 Good Friday Prayer from 1984 to 2007, when it was available (albeit rarely) under Indult.

The Pope wanted to amend the 1962 Missal? If you care to check, you will find that he mainly wanted to add the N.O. lectionary. He never mentioned changing the Good Friday prayers--never. You are making it all up. Why would he want to alter the 1962 Missal just seven months after S.P., at a time when he was trying to avoid controversy about it so as to make an arrangement with the S.S.P.X?

You are one of those people who confuses your own fantasies with reality--any fantasy is acceptable to defend the imprudent acts of a reigning Pope.

The facts could hardly be clearer. You want a smoking gun. What would it take to convince you, a public statement from the Pope that he changed the prayer to satisfy two chief rabbis? Get real. What you write is risible. You are like the pro-abortionist who demands that a pro-lifer prove absolutely that a rock is not a human being.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Braadwijk writes:

"As much as do not need absolute certainty to believe all things, you're still missing your smoking gun."

That's the whole point. You don't need a smoking gun to believe that Charles killed Louis, unless you are trying Charles before a court for murder. Even the degree of reasonable evidence is much greater for a criminal trial than it is for a civil one, which is why O.J. Simpson could get off from a crime but not from a civil offence.

I am not accusing the Pope of having committed a crime for which he should be imprisoned. Therefore, I don't need a smoking gun. I just need reasonable evidence, common sense, and some bloody judgement.

Of course, it could be pure chance that he just decided one day to change the 1962 Missal. He decided to change, by pure coincidence, the one part in it that the two chief rabbis of Palestine asked him to change in a formal letter.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I am just deeply saddened by the fact that here we have another rift in the traditional community now. And for what? This, after making great progress towards unity recently.

The era of good feelings of Summorum did not last long.

Braadwijk said...

Mr. Perkins,

As a geneticist I have many tools at my disposal and will gladly prove to you absolutely that a rock is not a human being, and vice versa.

The Pope has most certainly talked about the Missal and the need to reform it beyond the readings. He's not the only Pope, either. There were serious reforms dealing with it until the project was interrupted by the Council, and let's face it. The Missal does need some work, but I'm not the ultimate authority on what to change and why to change it. You aren't, either. That is the job of the Roman Pontiff.

If you tell me the Jews and leftist Catholics have never been offended by the Good Friday prayers until only recently, you are a liar. You can also expect them to seize the opportunities they're given, and given the recent publication of SP it really doesn't surprise me they would fan those flames. I am curious to know your position on John XXIII's removal of "perfidious" from the prayer. By your own logic he also did this to suit the Jews. Is this act also shameful, and do you adamantly refuse to use the adjustment out of fear for the "precedent" this has set?

The Pope also didn't issue SP as a concession to the SSPX. He issued it for the benefit of Catholics already in the thick of things, and he issued it for the sake of Europe's salvation. He also issued it out of his love and devotion to the EF, and more importantly his love of the Church. The SSPX does not factor into the equation because, let's face it, they are in no place to make demands of the Vatican. The SSPX is hardly the be all and end all of all things traditional. In that respect they think far too highly of themselves.

As for the smoking gun, you most certainly do need it to justify your "Pope is dangerous for Tradition with his reckless imprudence" theory. You came up with it to avoid the other questions (which you still haven't answered, by the way) and you're worse than a classical Darwinist when it comes to foisting it upon people. I can propose an elaborate biochemical pathway for an event based on all kinds of experimental evidence, but until I can produce the actual ligand interaction I can't prove that's what's really going on. Until you can prove that the Rabbis caused the change (those perfidious *facial tick* JEWS have no shame!) with their letters (the Pope's own testimony would be good on that one), your theory remains exactly that and I am by no means half-witted nor do I lack common sense for remaining skeptical of it. Maybe you're the one with the problem because the Pope isn't out there "restoring Tradition" exactly in the way you'd fantasized.

Anonymous said...

Braadwijk said...
[five long paragraphs of ad hominem attacks and unprovable assertions]

Dr Roberts said...

Get a clue, Braadwijk. No one questions the connection between the Good Friday prayers being changed and the opposition of the Jews. There's no other reason why the pope would suddenly decide to change these prayers.

You're making yourself look very silly...

Anonymous said...

Braadwijk says:

"If you tell me the Jews and leftist Catholics have never been offended by the Good Friday prayers until only recently, you are a liar."

I didn't assert that (and it would not necessarily make me a liar if I had: how dare you!). For a geneticist, you don't have a very good handle on distinctions. I am sure that the odd Jew bitched and screamed over the petition for them from time to time. Someone like Abraham Flotsam will bitch and scream almost over anything. What I asserted is that this was not a public issue between 1984 and 2007. I have been watching the news carefully over the years and never saw a large-scale (or even a small-scale) outcry over it. The odd person might have said something. It is, in fact, amazing how 99.9% of them never even noticed that we had those Good Friday Prayers from 1984 to 2007. The reason for the sudden outcry in 2007 is that Catholic liberals asked them to scream, and they did. But it was their screams, and the formal letter of the chief rabbis in particular, which got the Pope to change the prayer. Get real. The rabbis are well known to the Pope and have official standing and legal authority in Palestine, and they made their letter public. The Pope is not stupid. He knew that a quick reaction in favour of their request would be widely interpreted as a response to it.

My position on the change made by John XXIII was that he should not have made it; it was made on a whim by him, and not an example of organic change.

HOWEVER--and this is the main point here--, John XXIII clearly acted on his own initiative in 1959. There was no outcry from the Jews at the time. In those days, it was unthinkable that a Pope would change our Liturgy to suit them, so they didn't even ask. John XXIII, however, thought that it would improve relations with them. But it was solely his initiative.

What happened on Shrove Monday is far far worse not only because the entire ancient prayer was replaced but because the initiative came not from the Vicar of Christ but from the infidels, and the Pope caved in to them.

Ultimately, this entire matter is one of judgement. You and two or three others on the planet might think that there is no connexion between the chief rabbis' letter and the revision a fortnight later. The rest of us have more bloody sense.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Braadwijk, incredibly, writes this:

"The Pope also didn't issue SP as a concession to the SSPX. He issued it for the benefit of Catholics already in the thick of things, and he issued it for the sake of Europe's salvation. He also issued it out of his love and devotion to the EF, and more importantly his love of the Church."


I wonder if you have been following the news lately, Mr. B. It is well known that the S.S.P.X asked for two pre-conditions before entering into negotiations. Guess what the first one was? It was precisily that which was granted.

Of course, the Pope favoured S.P. with or without the S.S.P.X request and, yes, the Pope believed that this was just, for he was one of the nine cardinals on the 1986 commission that determined the rightness of this very outcome. I have never denied any of that.

However, you need to consider that the Pope does not have infinite de facto power in the Vatican of 2008. Liberals in the curia block everything. Look at the hue and outcry that was caused when, acting on the Pope's behalf, Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos approved the I.P.B. and made the 1962 Liturgy normative for it. The French bishops hit the roof and there was almost a rebellion. Similarly, it is well known that Kasper and Lehmann are cardinals because the German bishops threatened John Paul II with a similiar rebellion. A certain Cardinal Ratzinger at the time begged the late Pope not to elevate Kasper on the grounds that Kasper is a heretic. But Kasper got elevated nevertheless!

I think it reasonable to assert that the S.S.P.X provided the Pope with the excuse he needed to issue S.P. After all, he could have done something much simpler. Regularised traditioanlists were not calling for a universal right for all priests (they thought that to be too remote); they were calling for a universal *jurisdiction*, a Campos writ large. But they got precisely what the S.S.P.X demanded, not what they had asked for repeatedly.

Notice also that Article 12 of S.P. entrusts its oversight to the P.C.E.D., the Commission founded in 1988 *solely* to ensure reconciliation with the S.S.P.X. (df. "Ecclesia Dei", 6a).

Sorry, but we owe this to the S.S.P.X. Keep in mind that "Ecclesia Dei" would not exist without the S.S.P.X: it was published only five days after the unapproved consecrations of 1988. Under the 1984 Indult before 1988, the bishops had approved virtually no Traditional Latin Masses at all. What makes you think anything would have changed had it not been for the Society's persistance? Do you honestly think that the mere 9 out of 2,000 dioceses in the Western Hemisphere prior to 1988 which had every-Sunday Latin Masses would have flourished into the current number (over 150)? You'd have to be smoking something very powerful to think that.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Braadwijk writes:

"The SSPX is hardly the be all and end all of all things traditional. In that respect they think far too highly of themselves."

It's just that the rest of our Masses wouldn't even exist without them. Just a small matter, nothing significant.

Since you need a smoking gun to prove everything, you might want to provide evidence to show how many Traditional Latin Masses would exist without the Society's apparent influennce.

You'd find that, apart from the Masses permitted from Society pressure, there were the following:

(a) one every-Sunday T.L.M. from 1971 at London, England, under the Cardinal Heenan Indult;

(b) the every-Sunday T.L.M.s under Fr. Gomar de Pauw, of Long Island, N.Y. He managed to get jurisdiction under a suburbicarian bishop and presumably used the argument from immemorial custom to justify the liceity of those Masses. His Catholic Traditionalist Movement pre-dates the S.S.P.X. He died about two years ago.

(c) The Mozarabic Latin Rite, which survived in Toledo and in one tiny chapel in Salamanca, Spain. However, it was modernised in 1988.

(d) Possibly the Braga Use in Portugal, although nobody seems able to confirm its every-Sunday celebration.

Clearly, the 1984 Indult came about because (a) the New Mass was not being well received (and the Congregation for Divine Worship even admitted this in Q.A.A. *against* the claims of the bishops, para. 3, s. 1) and (b) despite the suspensio a divinis of 1976, the S.S.P.X had grown exponentially between 1970 and 1984. Yes, yes, I know that that second assertion is not a 'smoking gun'. Perhpas that very provable exponential expansion was completely unrelated to Rome's action. Anything's possible, Mr. B, but not anything's likely. I don't have absolute proof it, and yet I believe it. I also don't have absolute proof that your existence is not a bad dream, and yet I believe you exist.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

P.K.T.P. wrote:
"(a) one every-Sunday T.L.M. from 1971 at London, England, under the Cardinal Heenan Indult;"

Could you please state where this Mass was? As far as I am aware the Heenan Indult authorised occasional celebrations according to the 1967 rite but there were no public Masses on Sundays.

There were indeed several private Masses in places like St. Wilfrid's Chapel at the London Oratory. Most of those, such as that said by the late Fr. Mark Taylor, followed the pre-Pius XII rubrics. Another Oratorian, Fr. Edward followed the 1956 changes but not those of 1962. The vast majority of other celebrants invariably followed the same practice as Fr. Mark.

Anonymous said...

I consider that if the Ministry entrusted to St. Peter and his successors requires them to pray for and seek the conversion of Jews today, and not just at the actual end of time, then the Pope in changing the Good Friday prayer to refer only to the end time, has not only greatly failed in his Pontifical Duties, but has attacked the Petrine Ministry and abused it gravely.

We must take a stand with Our Lord and St. Paul, who rebuked St. Peter for doing something similar in Acts.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo
www.franciscan-archive.org

Anonymous said...

Someone asked:

"Could you please state where this Mass was? As far as I am aware the Heenan Indult authorised occasional celebrations according to the 1967 rite but there were no public Masses on Sundays."


Someone told me many years ago that there was one (either Spanish Place or the Brompton Oratory) that was celebrated right through the 1970s. Apparently, the 1971 Indult mentioned "special occasions" but Cardinal Heenan said that "every Sunday was a special occasion" and therefore allowed one every-Sunday Mass in London. I have never had this confirmed.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

P.K.T.P. wrote: 'Someone told me many years ago that there was one (either Spanish Place or the Brompton Oratory) that was celebrated right through the 1970s. Apparently, the 1971 Indult mentioned "special occasions" but Cardinal Heenan said that "every Sunday was a special occasion" and therefore allowed one every-Sunday Mass in London. I have never had this confirmed.'

Your someone was not well informed. Under Heenan there were no regular public Masses on Sundays in London. The LMS did organise occasional Masses for jubilees, anniversaries etc. The first regular public Masses in London followed in 1988.

As I said before there were several private Masses that became generally well known. Heenan made sure that the central London churches had a Paul VI rite Mass in Latin on Sundays, a practice that is still by and large extant today.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for that last update. I am always trying to verify facts. One hears so many rumours and unconfirmed stories. There was a Traditional Latin Mass at Ottawa, Canada, continued under the 1967 Indult for Masses for mixed languages in international centres. But I finally learnt that the Archbishop forced them to change the Latin Missal to the N.O.M. in 1974. In 1984, with the new Indult, they immediately switched back.

I have also heard a rumour that there was a private T.L.M. every Sunday at Amsterdam, in the Netherlands. The Archbishop turned a blind eye to it, so the rumour goes. Does anyone out there know if this is true? In law, an action, though unlawful, is not illicit if the legitimate authority does not use reasonable means to enforce the law. That's because liceity has a moral component.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

PKPT:

The bottom line question is not, "Can I disagree." Of course, you can. Many of us disagree with Communion in the hands, Communion over both species, versus populum, and all the rest.

The question, rather, is, "Will you submit when the Pope acts lawfully and makes a change?"

Otherwise, you're saying "Non serviam," you're a schismatic, and, well, however much you would then otherwise pretend allegiance to "eternal Rome" (which can never be separated from the Rome of the here and now), you're not Catholic.

Show me a great saint who has, like you have in so many, many, many posts, countenanced an attitude and constitution of disrespect and disobedience to the Pope. It goes beyond disagreeing. There is something visceral and disrespectful and not Catholic about it. It is not animated by a spirit of charity, that is certain.

But I can show you some of the greatest saints who always not only preached but practiced obedience and fealty to the Holy Father, even when it came at great cost to themselves: St. Francis de Sales, St. John Bosco, St. Padre Pio, St. Ignatius Loyola. Who in your pantheon could provide a counter example?

There were those like Catherine of Siena and Bridget of Sweden who took popes to task. This is legitimate. But they never did so publicly, and they always were faithful, filial, obedient, loyal Catholics who did what the Pope said.

You will never go wrong following the Pope, unless he countenances outright, objective mortal sin. You will, however, run straight into perdition waving the banner of Tradition if you choose to not follow the Pope.

Brian

Anonymous said...

One last thing: I expected the SSPX to say "non serviam." They have not let me down. But, hey, they are not in schism.

Will Ross

Anonymous said...

Well it does seem rather strange to talk of 'organic' development of liturgy and then embrace the latest directive hot of the press from Rome. What will change next in the 1962-2008 form? I understand a petition has already been sent to the Pontifical Council dealing with the unity of Christians complaining about the prayer for heretics and schismatics in the 1962-2008 missal for Good Friday.

Whilst I am no supporter of the SSPX I suspect they are right on this.