www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization ???Too Many SPXers??

Dear Remie,

The Society of St Pius X is "cut off" or "separated" from Rome.

Rome may well regard their Orders as valid, even though "irregular."

I suppose the term "schism" is less in vogue today than at other times.

We used to call the Orthodox "schismatics" but now they're just "separated brethren."

Alex

Hi friends

Thanks to your post I'm learning things about Tridentine Christianity, and the SSPX.

I've found that they have some things in common with our old-calendarist brothers, specially in the vocabulary they use, you know, no ecumenism, no modernism, no secularism.
I didn't know this current existed in modern catholicism.

I've found this sticky article that expresses some feelings of the SSPX toward the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches.

Here an interesting statement:

"In my area there is no Traditional Latin Mass but there is a Ukrainian Rite Liturgy. What about attending Traditional liturgies such as the Ukrainian? "

Besides the Tridentine Latin Rite, there are many other rites of Holy Mass (or Divine Liturgy) that were approved by Rome for use in Catholic churches before Vatican II. Among these are the Ukrainian and Maronite Rites, but there are many others. A Catholic could only consider attending these rites of the Church if they are done in churches that are in union with Rome. Many churches where these rites are performed were not in union with Rome before Vatican II, and these churches are clearly schismatic.

If in fact the Ukrainian or other rite church in your area is in union with Rome, it could be possible to attend liturgies at this church, but there is another problem. Some of these churches are already becoming quite liberal, and have already made ecumenical and other compromises in line with the "spirit of Vatican II". For example, some Ukrainian Catholic churches have held ecumenical services with schismatic Orthodox clergy. Others have introduced changes in the Liturgy, with obvious ones such as General Absolution, Saturday evening liturgies, and dancing girls, but also with subtle ones, such as changes to the words. If this is the case in your local situation, then you cannot attend liturgies at such a church, as the compromises that permeate the spirit of the place would put your Faith in danger, just as they would in the case of the New Mass.

To tell you the truth I felt really dissapointed when I read what this article contains because I've always felt some kind of simpathy toward the Tridentine Catholic Movement, and I am sure that many Orthodox and Eastern Catholic's who read this article will also loose this simpathy.

It's clear that some things are very offensive against the Orthodox faith and the liturgy (including an unffair comparisson between the Divine Liturgy and a Black Mass), so please, be prepared:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/9463/novuso.html

Remie, the bottom line is that the SSPX will not trust hardly anyone (except themselves and a few off-shoots) to be the true repository of the Catholic faith. See how even with regards to the Eastern Churches they add their disclaimer and phobias about our liturgies being tainted by liberalism. And with regards to the Orthodox, Fr. Schmidberger already stated publicly that the Orthodox were heretics in the letter previously quoted.

"Dancing girls?" In some places, we're still grappling with the idea of a woman chanting the Epistle.

Maybe I've just got blinders on.

Dancing girls? As long as they're vested as a subdeacon, I guess I could live with that. :p

In the site that Remie referred to, I found this little tidbit:
1. St. Thomas Aquinas gives an example of a valid Mass that is not pleasing to God:

A satanic black Mass, where the purpose the Consecration is to change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, to desecrate the Body and Blood of Christ afterwards in a satanic ritual. Such a Mass is a true sacrifice and is a valid Mass as St. Thomas teaches [S.T. III.64.10], however it is most certainly displeasing to God, and by attending it we can never fulfill our Sunday obligation.



Indeed, in the Summa, St. Thomas says plain as day the the subsequent intention of the celebrant has no bearing on the validity of the sacrament. His reasons are classic example of the legalism we now know as Thomistic.

What is the Eastern understanding regarding the validity of the sacrament vis-a-vis the intention of the celebrant?

Dear Mikey,

The Eastern Church would certainly consider the sinfulness of a Priest serving the Divine Liturgy (sinfulness that has not been repented of beforehand) to be an act of great sin on his part, but certainly having no bearing on the Mysteries consecrated by him and offered to the faithful.

That presupposes that the Priest, even the presumptuously sinful Priest who dares to approach the Altar in his unrepentant state, has the intention of consecrating the Mysteries not according to HIS intention, but according to the intention of the Church which is always oriented toward the glorification of God and the fulfillment of the Will of Christ for our salvation through His Church.

If his intention is in accordance with the reprehensible act you mention, (may God preserve anyone from such an act!) clearly the intention of fulfilling the ordinances in accordance with the intention and will of the Church is lacking and therefore his services cannot be valid.

They cannot be valid from our Church's and tradition's view especially since it is by the action of the Holy Spirit that the Mysteries are fulfilled.

The mere externals of the sacraments don't "do it."

Our Church invokes the Spirit in the Epiclesis and in every action it undertakes to come and fill all things as the Comforter and the Spirit of Truth.

The West's emphasis on the "proper forms" allows it to say that even an atheist may perform a valid baptism in case of emergency.

Unless he believes as the Church believes and is therefore able to invoke the coming of the Holy Spirit before such an action, such baptism is meaningless from an Eastern point of view.

It's an issue some have had a devil of a time unraveling . . .

Alex

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Remember Remie, just because a few bad seeds feel this way, does not mean all Traditional RC Tridentine Mass attending folk think this way. God Bless!

IC XC NIKA,
-NIk!
?�?"that website guy!"[/i]

Alex,

That's just as I thought. The Western preoccupation with "forms" is one of the things that has sent me trudging Eastward. Thanks.

In Christ,
mikey.

Dear Mikey,

Yes, the whole thing often puts one on the "horns of a dilemma" .

It is amazing, but I don't think there is even one theological or liturgical point on which the East isn't different from the West.

But we love those Westerners anyway, don't we pod-ner?

Alex

Good point Lemko - women assumed orders up to deaconness in the ancient church. Although it does not appear they ever served at the altar, but were readers, assisted with catechizing and baptizing other women, etc.

Alexander Schmemann of blessed memory wrote that the weaknesses and passions of the priest can't influence the efficacy of a sacramental celebration (assuming there is no serious sin which would inhibit him from serving in the first place), or else there would never be a "perfect" celebration of the mysteries.

Lemko - we have liturgical dance already! The Great and Little entrance, procession of the couple at Crowning, procession of the plaschanitsya, etc. We're always dancing around, either inside or outside. Another reason we don't need pews...

[ 09-09-2002: Message edited by: Diak ]

What an awful set of documents forming the worst of Latin legalism and judgement!
How to THEY know what is displeasing to God???
That kind of thing gets me very angry- <down boy

"Our Church invokes the Spirit in the Epiclesis and in every action it undertakes to come and fill all things as the Comforter and the Spirit of Truth.
The West's emphasis on the "proper forms"

From what I have read about Traditional Catholicism, they believe that faith is as important as the "proper forms". So, if the priest does not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but follows the correct proper forms (an Anglican priest or some modern RC priests, for example), the sacrament cannot be valid.

Is this correct?
How does this differs from the traditional orthodox view of the validity of the sacraments and the liturgy (since most of the modern authors deny the validity of these in the latin church)?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Remie:
[QB
From what I have read about Traditional Catholicism, they believe that faith is as important as the "proper forms". So, if the priest does not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but follows the correct proper forms (an Anglican priest or some modern RC priests, for example), the sacrament cannot be valid.

Is this correct?

Remie,
This is more of a Lutheran concept that the validity of the Sacraments was due to the Faith of those assembled instead of the action of the Holy Spirit "within" the forms themselves.

Dear Remie and Brian,

Yes, we're on a tightrope here.

We want to avoid the extremes of legalism and the emotionalism of Protestant views.

Rome does hold that even an atheist, in extreme circumstances, could baptise validly.

If a person were about to die, an atheist could perform a valid baptism by pouring water etc.

That would not obtain in the Eastern Churches, to be sure.

But if a validly ordained Priest in the state of sin dared to approach the Altar in that unrepentant state, the Mysteries/Sacraments would be true and valid for all those participating - even though the Priest would draw a terrible judgement on himself in so doing.

This would be different for a Priest who apostatized from the Church, however.

Alex