www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News The Bishop of Calgary, Alberta, has just suspended Latin Mass

Aramis,

The SSPX considers these actions to be emergency measures, necessitated by manifest heresy on Rome's part. Were this really the case, such actions could well be considered justified.

History has shown that schisms do not get healed by invoking Canon Law ...

Hello,



That is not what I said.

First things first: It is no secret that I am no fan of the SSPX. However, that is not because of their liturgical preferences.

The TLM has its rightful place in the history of the latin church and nobody can take that away.

Those who still see in that liturgical tradition the best way to express their their faith are to be respected and their spiritual needs need to be met. It is the church's responsibility.

However, I have always maintained that the problems with the SSPX and other similar groups go way beyond the use of the TLM.

In my opinion, ths "Ordinary vs. Extraordinary" thing the Pope instituted seems to give a way for sectarian mentalities to see their desire to be set apart from "the rest" of the Church at least partially vindicated by the hierarchy.

This position is not exclusive from the traditionalists, though, on the opposite side of the spectrum, the ultra-liberals also have the tendency to create their own ghettos in the form of "inner circles" of those "in the know" or "enlightened" by novel theologies (if only someone told them that their "latest and greatest" are just re-hashings of Arianism and Adoptionism, very, very old heresies).

The problem with the status quo is that it shows very clearly that the Church has not made up her mind:

If Liturgical uniformity is desired, then the rules need to be clear and properly enforced (and yes, that might include the TLM and the NO coexisting as equals).

If not, then we need to widely open the liturgy up to local innovations.

However, the current state of affairs seems to be this: There shall be rules, and the rules are: "If you kick and scream loud enough, you will get it your way".

To me, "Ordinary vs. Extraordinary" says: We really want to do things this way, but in order not to lose your contributions to the collection basket, you can have it however you want.

I believe we're giving out the wrong message.

Shalom,
Memo

This is important to understand: the message sent was mixed in the reception by the various receivers:
1) SSPX: 'grouse long enough and Rome will give in'
2) FSSP, ICRSS: 'Thank you for your patience. Expect more work soon.'
3) liturgically Liberal Catholics: "See, there can be many forms. Keep experimenting, we'll move the conservatives out of your way"
4) liturgically conservative Catholics: "You can have your old mass, just convince your bishop there is a need, but now you can individually complain to the CDW if he doesn't listen"
5) catholics of the non-roman Western Rites: no change for you! (One made a comment on another board that amounted to understanding it as "Stay in your ghetto or act Roman")
6) Many Roman Bishops: "Here's what you have to do, now do it."
6a) A sadly enough not too few Roman Bishops: "Blah, Blah, Blah."

Many of those 6a bishops don't consider anything but canon law to bind them; the papal instructions are ignored one after another. (What they fail to realize is that canon law actually includes any post-promulgation of the code moto proprio by default, and unless it directly contradicts, any pre-promulgation of the code moto proprio.)

Quoting the law doesn't end schisms; making the faithful aware of the law has brought a few who wish to be obedient back from schism.

If the Trent mass had been merely vernacularized, there would still be complaints. Many traditionalists in the Archdiocese of Anchorage, which is very orthodox and orthopraxic for a Roman diocese based upon what I've seen online, don't care whether it's the TLM or the Pauline Latin Mass, they want an end to the vernacuar in all liturgies (even St John's liturgy). There is a smaller set here that want the Trent mass, but many of them will accept (gleefully) it in english, for they want the priest facing east, one reading, and 30-minutes and done.

The various agendas leading to the TLM desire still don't address the issues the council actually had ordered addressed: revision of the calendar, the readings, a return to concelebration outside of hierarchical masses, and the mandating of a homily, not just a sermon.

And the communion in the hand issue would likely have arose anyway.

I do support the use of the TLM where there is a desire for it. I think it should be a separate ordinariate system, just like has been authorized for the Anglicans, if not a church sui iuris (As Fr. Bishop Lefebvre desired). Let the trads be trads, and free of meddlesome bishops who oppose their liturgy. They are, in many ways, where EC's were in 1908... allowed their liturgy but not allowed to be true to their heritage due to a combination of social and episcopal pressures.

As Bob noted above, the thread is no longer focused on the situation in Calgary. While it's natural that threads that have their initial focus on a news item tend to stray into other areas, to say that the SSPX is related periphally, at best, to the original topic is a stretch. Those wishing to continue discussing the SSPX are welcome to open a thread in Town Hall.

This thread is closed; thanks to all who participated.

Many years,

Neil