Recently rumors have been flying that Pope Francis is preparing to impose stringent restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass. Of course, unfounded rumors out of the Vatican are not new, and some journalists have not been able to identify anybody who has actually seen the document in question.
Still, even if it ends up being in the class of “Pope Francis is dying” rumors that we have heard for years, such a document would be in character for a pontificate that has emphasized placing hedges around the more conservative, traditional elements of the Church. While his predecessor’s position towards the Latin Mass community can be broadly characterized as one of accommodation, Pope Francis has taken a more confrontational approach.
But why? What is the problem with allowing what is by all measures a small fraction of Catholics to participate in a licit Mass that they find beautiful, reverent, and holy? The very real fact is that Traditional Latin Mass participation has been associated with factions inside the Church who do not accept Vatican II and may even be quasi-schismatic, and multiple popes have taken a variety of approaches in how to deal with groups such as the SSPX.
It is not our place to tell the Holy Father what to do; we are social scientists, not bishops, and one of us is not even Catholic; however, the extent to which the TLM community is a schismatic hotbed of negative attitudes towards Vatican II is ultimately an empirical one that is scientifically investigable, and on this point there has been a clear lack of objective, systematically collected data.
The Prefect for the Dicastery for Divine Worship, Cardinal Arthur Roche, has made it clear that he thinks the TLM has a different liturgical theology than the Novus Ordo. There is also the argument that the TLM is an implied, if not explicit, rejection of Vatican II. It seems the Holy Father himself holds this view. Conclusions based on impressions are suspect if they are not supported by more objective evidence.
In announcing Traditiones Custodes (the 2021 round of Latin Mass restrictions), the Pope invoked a survey that he had disseminated among bishops on the question of the Latin Mass. However, in addition to the fact that the survey was of bishops and not Traditional Latin Mass-goers themselves, the wordings used, the exact responses, the representativeness—any one of many things that would be required for a professional survey statistician to objectively gauge the validity of the survey—were completely unknown. Therefore it is difficult to know how seriously to take the results of the survey when only the vaguest details are known.
We, a professor of sociology and theology (and a TLM attender) and a demography/sociology dual-PhD data scientist, have been striving to remedy the lack of transparent, systematically collected, objective data on the TLM community in preparation for a book we are writing: collating all previously published information on the demographics and attitudes of the TLM community (it is not a lot), as well as conducting our own surveys and supplementing our quantitative data with approximately 20 in-depth, semi-structured interviews of TLM Catholics across the country. While our study is on the United States TLM community in particular, given the American Church’s reputation as a hotbed of conservativism, we believe our findings have broad implications.
So what did we find? While we are still processing our data, some relevant themes have already emerged. There is obviously a lot to talk about with TLM Mass-goers, which we will discuss in greater detail in the book, but in broad strokes, this is some of what we learned about Traditional Latin Mass Catholics in the United States:
- There is some truth to the conventional wisdom that they tend to be politically conservative. Of the 446 respondents in our survey who attend the Traditional Latin Mass at least once per year, 77% of them lean Republican.
- They are very, very pro-life. 85% of the TLM Catholics in our sample believe that abortion should be illegal in all cases, whereas 13% believe it should be illegal in most cases, while only 1.6% believe it should be legal in most cases, and less than 1% believe that it should be legal in all cases.
- They are orthodox. In our survey only 2% of TLM Catholics believe that the bread and wine of communion are symbols, as opposed to the Real Presence, of the body and blood of Christ. In a similarly worded Pew survey of general Catholics, 69% considered the Eucharist a symbol.
- They generally accept the Second Vatican Council. When we asked “I accept the teachings of Vatican II”
- 4% Strongly disagreed
- 7% Disagreed
- 10% Somewhat disagreed
- 15% Neither agreed nor disagreed
- 15% Somewhat agreed
- 27% Agreed
- 22% Strongly agreed
This is a case where the interview data helped flesh out the reasons for the ambivalence in the survey responses. A very common theme found in our interviews was distinguishing between what was actually in the Vatican II documents and how it had been carried out or interpreted. (Bear in mind that the Council issued tens of thousands of words on a huge array of topics, and with widely varying levels of doctrinal weight.) Even with how Vatican II has developed they exhibited ambiguity, often seeing both bad and good things arising from the Council at the same time.
- They accept the authority of Pope Francis. While, unfortunately, our survey did not include a question about sedevacantism per se, such attitudes were extremely rare among the TLM Catholics we interviewed. Many saw such attitudes as spiritually dangerous, and nearly all of them recognized the authority of the Pope, although they felt hurt by what they felt was his persecution of their community and many had reservations about him. (While possibly not predictive of sedevacantist attitudes, it is not irrelevant that in our survey 95% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “I believe the Pope is the Vicar of Jesus Christ.”)
It is true that our sample could be considered skewed because we specifically only interviewed TLM Catholics who were attending valid, licit TLM services, and not SSPX parishes. Still, the number of SSPX parishes is quite small, with only 103 chapels relative to the nearly 500 non-SSPX parishes offering the TLM in the United States after Traditiones. For the most part quasi-schismatic groups are only a small part of the Traditional Latin Mass story in the United States (although, ironically, shutting down licit TLM services makes SSPX a proportionally larger part of the Traditional Latin Mass community; there were over 800 parishes with licit TLM offerings before).
- TLM attitudes towards the SSPX could best be characterized as one of ambivalence. While many of the TLM Catholics we interviewed had reservations about such groups, they empathized with them.
We will have much more to say in the book about, for example, the mental health and flourishing of the TLM community, whether they actually are younger and have more children, their politics, how they have adapted to Traditiones Custodes, and their perspectives on liturgy, the Vatican, and the future of the TLM movement, but it is clear that, as might be expected for such a theoretically fascinating group, their attitudes are nuanced, and do not fit neatly into stereotypes about schismatic sedevacantists.
In fact, some of the preliminary results suggest the TLM community, while drawn to a different aesthetic than the typical parish experience, holds onto the beliefs of the Catholic faith more consistently than the wider population of Catholics, including regular Novus Ordo Mass-goers. That is not to say there are no questions that can and should be asked about how TLM Catholics live their faith, but the caricature of the TLM community as near-schismatics threatening the authority of the papacy is itself questionable. More studies and surveys that are transparent in methodology need to be conducted before conclusions should be made that impact such a dynamic population of the Catholic Church.
What we need now is a serious scientific examination of who TLM Mass-goers are, what they believe, and how a suppression of their preferred form of worship will impact them and the Church more generally. This is a case where sociology and its scientific methods can help the Church make decisions based on facts rather than just impressions or anecdotes. God willing, she will make use of them.
(Editor’s note: This essay was published originally on the What We Need Now site and is republished here with kind permission.)
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Or help the Church make decisions based on facts rather than shadowy surveys of bishops.
I am always disturbed every time I read articles like this one and the continued abuse of language. It is not a “Traditional Latin Mass (TLM)” but a “Tridentine Mass”. It doesn’t really matter how many “PHD’s” Stephen Bullivant has behind his name when he uses false language to debate his points on Tridentine Mass in the Extraordinary Form. This is nothing more than an abuse of language throughout this article.
What does come through in Professor Stephen Bullivant argument and debate is nothing short of a cult by cafeteria Catholics who have chosen only to accept what they choose to accept from the catechism. There is a lot more going on in these small group of people that have nothing to do with the Sacrament of the Holy Mass but a false cultural narrative. Stephen Bullivant uses the same flawed rhetoric just to prove his point which is not the current teachings of the Church and that folks is a sin.
You, sir, give yourself away: “Stephen Bullivant uses the same flawed rhetoric just to prove his point which is not the CURRENT TEACHINGS [sic, emphasis added] of the Church and that folks is a sin.”
The phrase ‘and that folks is a sin’ lacks grammatical sense. But the sentence in which it occurs makes not only no grammatical sense, it makes no Catholic, theological, logical, or Christian sense whatsoever. Church teaching is eternal. Church teaching arises from Christ. Church teaching is true. Since when has the (citing it your way…) ‘Tridentine Mass’ become a cult by cafeteria Catholics? Why did this ‘cult’ produce so many saints for so many years?? Answer, sir, if you understand John 18:23.
I can, at this point, only laugh. Since when has the Church changed her teaching?
The correct juxtaposition to contrast the “Novus Ordo” (Vatican II Mass) with is “Vetus Ordo” (Tridentine Mass) not “TLM” or the outrageously deceptive and erroneous “Mass of the Ages.”
You are so ignorant about the TLM that you are in no position to judge what you don’t know about. Please educate yourself with church and liturgical history before you post such nonsense.
I invite you to take this little education about the liturgy for your enlightenment and so erase your ignorance. The comparative other side or contrast of the Novus Ordo (“new order” of the Mass=Vatican II Mass) is Vetus Ordo (“old order” of the Mass=Tridentine Mass) not “Traditional Latin Mass” or “TLM.” The way “TLM” is used today (and mistakenly understood by you) by Vetus Ordo adherents and advocates is misleading as it erroneously suggests that only the “TLM” is in Latin. In fact, the Novus Ordo can also be celebrated in Latin. While it is typically celebrated in vernacular or local everyday languages of the people, the official text of the Novus Ordo is in Latin and is the basis upon which all the versions in other languages are translated. This Latin original is always available for use and when celebrated in this way the Novus Ordo is rightly called a Latin Mass. Both forms, the Vetus Ordo (now should be strongly noted as faulty to call it “TLM”) and Novus Ordo are technically Latin Masses as they both have Latin as their original and official language. Contrary to what its detractors (mainly Vetus Ordo promoters) claim, the Novus Ordo adheres to what Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, proclaims: “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites” (SC 36.1).
The next survey of Catholics
– those who prefer TLM and those who prefer the NO – should include two questions that I have have never seen asked:
1. “Have you read the official documents of Vatican Council II? Yes or No. If yes, what percent of the complete documents would you say you have read: a. 100%; b. 75%; c. 50%; d. 25%”
2. “Can you state, as clearly as you can, three of the teachings of Vatican Council II that you consider most salient, most important in your opinion?”
I think the answers to these two basic questions would be most revealing. It would also be extremely revevant to today’s goverance of the Catholic Church since so many decisions are being made on Catholics’ acceptance or rejection of Vatican Council II.
My guess is that in today’s Catholic Church these questions will never be asked because Church leaders really do not want to know since then decisions couldn’t then be based on “facts” that are created out of whole cloth.
Would #2 be teachings of the Vatican Council II that were reiterated by the Council or developed by it, or strictly those teachings that were developed by it?
Because if the first, I would say that the existence of Divine Revelation, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Institution of the Eucharist are probably up there.
If the second, I would have to say “no idea”.
Which is really the trouble with talking about Vatican 2. What is exactly the same as before, what did the Council change, and what did the “false spirit” change? As it stands it’s hardly possible to even argue about the Council.
Amanda: Some very valid points. I would say those teachings contained in the Council documents that weren’t already familiar to the well-catechized Catholic.
Since a common argument of TLM adherents is that the Novus Ordo Mass is less efficacious than the Tridentine Mass, a set of valid questions should also be posed. Such as:
1. Do you believe that the TM is more efficacious then the NOM?
2. If yes, what is your basis for that belief? Have you read any Church documents that support that belief?
This is an appropriate line of questioning since many of the people complaining about persecution by Pope Francis are the ones on social media and in articles who are trying to convince NOM adherents of that very belief—trying to win them over. If they want the Pope to stop, they should stop being divisive by spreading false Doctrine about the economy of Grace relative to the sacrificial offering of the Mass.
The fact remains that Bergoglio is antagonistic toward the Mass as it’s been celebrated for many centuries, while he apparently has no problem with dozens of sweet, faithful sisters being preyed upon sexually by a friend of his, or with that friend’s ugly, vile, soulless mosaics desecrating Christianity’s holiest of places.
That is Bergoglio’s diabolical legacy. May God have mercy on his soul.
The fact remains that Bergoglio is antagonistic toward the Mass as it’s been celebrated for many centuries, while he apparently has no problem with dozens of sweet, faithful sisters being preyed upon sexually by a friend of his, or with that friend’s ugly, vile, soulless mosaics desecrating Christianity’s holiest of places.
That is Bergoglio’s diabolical legacy. May God have mercy on his soul.
And soon.
The survey tabulates what the average TLM person believes and does, but the problem is balancing that with the disproportionate leverage of the few very vocal extremists who are seen to represent them. Perhaps there wouldn’t be any problem with the TLM being a recognized option within the Church if it had not been for these very few loud mouthed extremists. The old saying that “the wheel that squeaks gets the oil” applies here. These few errant bees kept buzzing around and 🐝 stinging the bear’s nose until he lashed out with his great paw and smashed them flat. All the while the majority of the bees were quietly going about their business supplying the hive with honey. Clearly the wrong people were punished. Perhaps a few excommunications would have been a better solution. It’s never a good idea to punish the whole class for the actions of a few cowardly bullies! The Pope is human and his response was understandably human. In his shoes we would probably have done the same.
“…the few very vocal extremists who are seen to represent them.”
Who do you have in mind, exactly? And where do you think they are operating?
Asking for one or two names is, consciously or not, a debating tactic designed to give the impression that there aren’t many. I have been a member of several Catholic groups. I have experienced a large number of these vocal extremists who have regularly engaged in spreading false claims that the Novus Ordo Mass is inferior/less efficacious to the Tridentine Mass. Unfortunately, they weren’t always charitable in their posts. More than one would post laughing emojis when someone expressed their love for the Ordinary Form. I believe that most were sincere about their beliefs, but that does not necessarily equate with Truth.
I got so fed up with their divisiveness that I wrote a comprehensive article to rebut their claims. It was effective. The “attacks” , almost completely stopped.
I cannot comment on what happened in the situations you cite, but there are very significant differences between the Masses.
1) NOM, TLM & Cranmer’s heretical service compared:
https://www.amazon.com/Lex-Orandi-Credendi-Examination-Tridentine/dp/0955070708/ref=sr_1_1?crid=345PX395F8C9L&keywords=lex+orandi+wetherell&qid=1677592571&s=books&sprefix=lex+orandi+wetherell%2Cstripbooks%2C172&sr=1-12
2) NOM + other NO rites examined:
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=lex+orandi+daniel+graham&i=stripbooks&crid=2WGURKICREKW7&sprefix=lex+orandi%2Cstripbooks%2C201&ref=nb_sb_ss_fb_1_103
3) In depth history/development NOM. (Author was a sedevacantist but his personal views are not relevant to the scholarship of his research. It is impressive):
https://www.amazon.com/Work-Human-Hands-Theological-Critique/dp/0982686706
4) Includes a preface by Pope Benedict XVI which pertaining to the NOM is rather scathing:
https://www.amazon.com/Reform-Roman-Liturgy-Problems-Background/dp/0912141050/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3UTQIC4NF942U&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.eCOLxD5MdZ-bguFuw2HsEPG_4ijO5hJK1Y7m9BlX36b0TZwQy4tEfgc2i04sER3P692lRQXuG46YO-RYUfFjuZnGagvo8IKMm62HM4hRO77PySxRuJb4bshxIdgjAYZbOw-SthKEhbQK0Nnhc0teVHebCX-b_ldUVoT6abgCyiyFYNDl_q5kluyGZTZl85VM80YXQSc8-iStFAo2KbAtTN4Fa0JjblxRmey5aRFRCrE.CxGGj8-u2rHFQtLzyS4P5vB0RZzCDwU1SkNIB6cdy2I&dib_tag=se&keywords=klaus+gamber%2C&qid=1719317781&sprefix=klaus+gamber%2C%2Caps%2C151&sr=8-1
who’s extreme are you representing here? Your language sounds extremely strident, not at all conversational
Why not dialogue with your so-called extremists before you punish them? Most of their issues surround the theology of the old Mass versus the theology of the new Mass. This particularly moral theology is what they do mot want to address. Why would that be?
Is dialogue not the way with the present papacy?
Had I been a man, and been in Pope Francis shoes, I would not have done as he has. In fact, I would have said, Okay, folks, have at it. If you want to go to the Tridentine Rite, go. If you want to go to the Novus Ordo, go. If you (as a priest) want to celebrate both (they are, after all, supposedly pretty much the same rite, right??), fine.
Exactly, Mrs. Hess. You’re only stating what a Good Shepherd ought to have done.
“Perhaps there wouldn’t be any problem with the TLM being a recognized option within the Church if it had not been for these very few loud mouthed extremists.”
Ig the preference of a “very few loud mouthed extremists” is reason to conduct a liturgical pogrom, then what are we to make of the preferred Rite of Jimmy Martin, the nuns on the bus….
If you want to produce loud-mouthed extremists, one of the most effective ways is to abuse and oppress innocent people. It’s not like the bees are all worked up, buzzing around threateningly for the fun of it. Their hive got smashed, and then they were allowed to repair it for a bit, and then it was smashed again. As approved by the bear that they’re buzzing around and stinging.
Yes, traditionalists Catholics are supposed to be Christian and forgive. That’s why the whole hive isn’t buzzing around stinging. If no one was, we would be the largest group in history to have 100% of the membership forgive in less than 3 years.
I’m sure you’re trying to be helpful and distinguish between the good trads and the mad trads, but really, if you smash up the hive, you should probably be willing to take some stings without using them as justification to smash it some more. Not to mention, you can’t excommunicate someone for saying mean things about the Pope. It’s not a canonical crime.
Whether the pope is human or not is inconsequential, and defending Francis is an inappropriate response to the larger question. He persecutes believers who want to participate in the traditional mass while giving audiences to homosexualist priests. I think it’s fair to say that Francis’ priorities are confused.
The future of the Catholic Church must be traditional Liturgy; how else will we survive? We cannot forsake our 3500 year old liturgical inheritance (Leviticus-Trent). 69% of Novus Ordo Catholics think the Eucharist is a symbol… are you kidding me?! That is the fruit of the Novus Ordo. Focus on man and you get self-worship. Focus on divine worship and you get saints.
While I believe it is good to use the language that the congregation uses, I wish nothing else had changed. I very much miss the Tridentine Mass for many reasons. Compared to that, the new Mass seems empty. I don’t experience the mystery, the awe. The music doesn’t is not (at least to me) as uplifting. When the priest performed the act of Consecration is drew me in. His facing the East may just be tradition, but it was more meaningful, not as rushed. It felt more worshipful.
Amen!!!!
I’m a member of an FSSP parish; and we were alerted to the opportunity to participate in a survey of beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, and practices a few years ago. The question on the mental health particularly struck me as weird, but I suppose the survey preparers viewed it as necessary for some arcane reason I could not discern.
I appreciate your work and look forward to reading the book.
Has anyone out there read Yves Chiron’s “Between Rome and Rebellion”? Focusing on the decade before and after VCII, in excruciating detail, he provides a thorough mining of sources to tell the historical tale. He deals with the progressive-orthodox theological, liturgical, politico-ecclesial and personal battles fought, lost, and won. Meanwhile, the picture painted shows the TLM surviving because of the love and the tenacity of those who saw its value, its validity, its beauty, its sacrificial propitiary relevance to our day. IT LIVES today because Christ appears to love it.
The mental health question might be due to a number of comments the Holy Father has made, claiming that a lot of traditionalists have mental health problems.
Good call! Francis does like to stick that “backwardist” label onto traditionalists. The mentally ill patients were historically put in the ‘back wards’ when hospitalized.
I am also interested in reading the final book, especially to see what the “big picture” based on the entire dataset looks like. I am hoping for some pleasant surprises. And I will look up the Chiron book.
For me, TLM is Taliban Latin Mass. TLM Catholics are Taliban Catholics for their extremism, backwardism, rigidity, belligerence, and rejection of Vatican II and Pope Francis.
Matt Miller,are you presuming to be speaking from a Christan mindset?
Can you offer anything besides vitriol?
Hey Matt,
Thanks for the persecution.
Why do you seek to continue division in the Mystical Body? What happened to unity?
I hope you find peace and stop picking fights with your friends.
Ave Maria!
Did you even read the above article?
As He said, he came for the sinner, not the righteous. If the TLM saves a sinner where the current method doesn’t, what is wrong with that?
There is nothing wrong with that. Just as Matt went too far, what’s wrong is when some TLM do not give the same courtesy to the NO church goers that also bring people back to the faith. Being Catholic, we know exactly what’s being said, and there are a few extremists who keep up the battle with oh let me think: calling Pope Francis Bergoglio and reporting that he isn’t the Pope, that somehow he forced Pope Benedict to resign. There’s no need to go on because you know this is accurate about some who are radical and do have a bully public pulpit. I say this again believing that Matt went too far one way and you another way.
I’ve read a lot of ridiculous comments. Most of them are my own. But this one from Matt Miller is a cut above.
Quite Christian of you.
Here’s the data. Before Traditionis Custodes was issued by Pope Francis, the numbers of where the Vetus Ordo Mass (side by side with the Novus Ordo Mass) was celebrated are: of the 225,000 parishes worldwide, the Vetus Ordo is celebrated in 1,700 only; in the U.S., of the 18,000 parishes, it is celebrated in 700 only. With and after Traditionis Custodes, the numbers for the Vetus Ordo have gone down significantly.
Bishop Schneider says the SSPX is not in schism.
Who is Bishop Schneider to say so? The Popes have been consistent in declaring that the SSPX is in schism and not in full communion with the Church (JPII, Ecclesia Dei; BXVI, Ecclesiae Unitatem; and Francis, Traditiones Custodes). Read these following full quotations.
1. Pope Paul VI’s letter to Archbishop Lefebvre on the (schism) withdrawal of canonical recognition from the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) June 29, 1975:
” … Our grief is even greater to note that the decision of the competent authority – although formulated very clearly, and fully justified, it may be said, by your refusal to modify your public and persistent opposition to the Second Vatican Council, to the post-conciliar reforms, and to the orientations to which the Pope himself is committed.
” Finally, the conclusions which [the Commission of Cardinals] proposed to Us, We made all and each of them Ours, and We personally ordered that they be immediately put into force.”
Source: PAUL VI, “Lettre de S. S. Le Pape Paul VI a Mgr. Lefebvre,” 29 June 1975, La Documentation Catholique, n. 1689, trans. in M. DAVIES, Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, p. 113.
2. Pope St. John Paul II on SSPX schism in his Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, February 7, 1988:
” In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of CEASING THEIR SUPPORT IN ANY WAY FOR THAT MOVEMENT. Everyone should be aware that formal ADHERENCE TO THE SCHISM IS A GRAVE OFFENCE AGAINST GOD and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.”
https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei.html
3. Pope Benedict XVI in his Letter to the Bishops dated March 10, 2009::
“The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.
“In order to make this clear once again: UNTIL THE DOCTRINAL QUESTIONS ARE CLARIFIED, THE SOCIETY HAS NO CANONICAL STATUS IN THE CHURCH, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church…
“This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially DOCTRINAL in nature and concern primarily THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL AND THE POST-CONCILIAR MAGISTERIUM OF THE POPES.
“The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society.
https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html
4. Pope Francis did give SSPX the faculty to hear confessions legally and validly, because it does not contradict Canon Law. There have always been exceptional circumstances or instances of necessity in which the Church recognizes as valid and licit the reception of sacraments from priests who may be immoral, schismatic, irreligious, laicized, or even non-Catholic, provided their denominations have sacramental confessions.
Canon 844 §2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
Canon 976 Even though a priest lacks the faculty to hear confessions, he absolves validly and licitly any penitents whatsoever in danger of death from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present.
While Pope Francis’ gesture of mercy shows an important precedent — for the good of souls, the Church has the power to grant faculties even to priests who are not in good standing — it is nevertheless NOT AN APPROVAL OF THEM – not an approval of SSPX, or their situation.
5. Pope Francis in his letter Misericordia et Misera, November 20, 2916: “For the pastoral benefit of these faithful (who attend churches officiated by the SSPX ) and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s HELP FOR THE RECOVERY OF FULL COMMUNION IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made, lest anyone be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church’s pardon.”
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_letters/documents/papa-francesco-lettera-ap_20161120_misericordia-et-misera.html
Very clearly, Pope Francis’ motu proprio shows there is still the need for SSPX “to recover full communion in the Catholic Church.” Therefore, Pope Benedict’s statement on SSPX’s non-canonical status in the Church still stands.
6. Pope Francis’ letter, dated July 16, 2021, that accompanies Traditionis Custodes, specifically mentioning SSPX to be in “schism.” Here’s the 2nd paragraph, fully quoted:
“Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, promulgated by St. Pius V and edited by St. John XXIII in 1962, for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The faculty — granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984 and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988 — was above all MOTIVATED BY THE DESIRE TO FOSTER THE HEALING OF THE SCHISM WITH THE MOVEMENT OF MONS. LEFEBVRE. With the ecclesial intention of restoring the unity of the Church, the Bishops were thus asked to accept with generosity the “just aspirations” of the faithful who requested the use of that Missal.”
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html
7. About the SSPX faculty to officiate in Catholic weddings (Letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith dated March 27, 2017). It states that with the diocese’s permission, an SSPX priest may officiate in a Catholic wedding but only if there is no diocesan or religious priest available, and the documents must be forwarded to the diocesan curia. It should be remembered, too, that in the sacrament of matrimony, the ministers are the couple themselves. A priest is only there to witness for the Church and receive the couple’s consent.
Other than those limited faculties, the sacraments of the SSPX, although valid, are not recognized by the Church because, as Pope Benedict XVI writes, the Society has no canonical status and no legitimate ministry in the Church.
8. Many people, including bishops, who say SSPX is not in schism or has reconciled with the Church, should be able to produce a document similar to Pope John Paul II’s letter welcoming the SSPX in Campos, Brazil (now the Union of St. John Mary Vianney) into the fold, otherwise they should not be believed. Here’s the link to Pope JPII letter:
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4141
Who is Bishop Schneider? Bishop Schneider was an official Visitator (inspector) of SSPX sent by Pope Francis. He has repeatedly, publicly praised SSPX without any correction by the Pope. Indeed, Francis himself has also passed on praise of SSPX “good faith and sacramental practice”. (LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS
ACCORDING TO WHICH AN INDULGENCE IS GRANTED TO THE FAITHFUL
ON THE OCCASION OF THE EXTRAORDINARY JUBILEE OF MERCY, 1 September 2015)
In response to dubium sent to USCCB: “The Holy See has not used the term ‘schism,’ however, perhaps because the dialogue between the Catholic Church and the SSPX has continued and the matter remains unresolved.” (James LeGrys, September 10, 2021)
Approval to meet Mass obligation has been granted multiple times by agents acting on behalf of the Popes. Citations included here: https://catholicfamilynews.com/blog/2023/04/28/sspx-masses-and-fulfilling-the-sunday-obligation/
Pope Benedict’s 2009 letter is outdated. SSPX does in fact “legitimately exercise ministry” within the Church as acknowledged by Pope Francis in granting SSPX priests worldwide faculties to absolve. Note: this is a faculty no other Catholic priests possess. (Though it should be obvious, Popes do not grant faculties to Methodists and Lutherans, that is, Popes do not grant faculties to schismatic organizations.)
Issues involving SSPX have always been handled as an internal Church matter (CDF/DDF, PCED), NOT as with schismatic groups. Issues involving schismatic groups (Eastern Orthodox, various Protestant sects, etc) are handled within the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU), now Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity.
Rod: The point is that SSPX is in schism. Schneider, Strickland, Hounder and other sympathetic bishops are not competent to make official church judgments about the SSPX status that have been consistently declared schismatic by the Popes. And let’s be clear about this linguistic gymnastics. The “praise” of the SSPX by any Pope does not reverse its status of being in “schism.” The SSPX will remain in its present status of schism, meaning it is separate from and outside the communion of the Church, until it changes and turns away from its persistent disobedience and resistance to Vatican II liturgical reforms and teachings on religious freedom.
Pope Francis did indeed give SSPX the faculty to hear confessions legally and validly, because it does not contradict Canon Law. This “legitimate exercise of ministry” however does not equate or lead to the rescinding of its schismatic status. There have always been exceptional circumstances or instances of necessity in which the Church recognizes as valid and licit the reception of sacraments from priests who may be immoral, schismatic, irreligious, laicized, or even non-Catholic, provided their denominations have sacramental confessions.
Canon 844 §2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
Canon 976 Even though a priest lacks the faculty to hear confessions, he absolves validly and licitly any penitents whatsoever in danger of death from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present.
While Pope Francis’ gesture of mercy shows an important precedent — for the good of souls, the Church has the power to grant faculties even to priests who are not in good standing — it is nevertheless NOT AN APPROVAL OF THEM – not an approval of SSPX, or the reversal of its schismatic condition.
Pope Francis in his letter Misericordia et Misera, November 20, 2016: “For the pastoral benefit of these faithful (who attend churches officiated by the SSPX) and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s HELP FOR THE RECOVERY OF FULL COMMUNION IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made, lest anyone be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church’s pardon.”
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_letters/documents/papa-francesco-lettera-ap_20161120_misericordia-et-misera.html
Very clearly, Pope Francis’ motu proprio shows there is still the need for SSPX “to recover full communion in the Catholic Church.” Therefore, Pope Benedict’s statement on SSPX’s non-canonical status in the Church still stands.
You have no idea what you are talking about. In fact, in making this claim in rejecting the administrative authority of the Popes and their designated agents to rules as they have (permitting meeting Mass obligation at SSPX Mass, faculties granted, etc) YOU crowd schism itself.
No one can or ever has defined “full communion” and by your very comment here you destroy your own argument. Popes do not grant faculties to priests in schism. By that very act proof is provided that they are not.
The real question is whether the church will just continue to accept decomposition and decline while the SSPX continues to grow and bear real fruit. When will the church come back to its mass, its teachings, its splendor and grandeur?
i would also be curious to know where/how TLM parishioners will worship if the rumor is true. will they join SSPX? maybe Eastern Rite?
rebecca, my guess is either in the Eastern Rite churches or at an Ordinariate parish.
Clarification: Lay people do not “join” SSPX. Those that attend SSPX chapels are simply Catholics assisting at Mass.
The only individuals who are members of SSPX are the priests and those who join the 3rd Order.
“There is also the argument that the TLM is an implied, if not explicit, rejection of Vatican II.”
The only way that one can claim that is to say that Vatican II is an implied, if not explicit, rejection of the pre-Vatican II Church.
Yet the people who pushed most of the “spirit of Vatican II” changes (that is, changes for which the documents of Vatican II either did not call or explicitly rejected) kept telling those who objected that *of course* those changes weren’t a break with the past.
Solid.
I will add that the widespread toleration of routine liturgical abuses in the NO is an indication that the bishops and priests involved have rejected the NO. You can’t say “I don’t want that” more clearly than by obstinately changing it to your own preferred thing.
Ask the average American in the Catholic Church survey pool if he supports or rejects abortion? That’s a teaching of Vatican II (GS 51). Ask if Latin & Gregorian Chant should remain part of our liturgy in 2024 (SC). Ask if Vatican II calls for versus populum or new words of consecration. If the hierarchs cancel the worship of God based on that survey, the Novus Ordo Missae (NOM) goes away 9 or 10 times out of 10 because we see polls indicating that half or more Catholics support abortion given a normal cross-section of parishes & Latin, chant, and “priest has his back to me” comments are well-known. Ask some basic teachings of Nicaea, Ephesus, Chalcedon, or Trent, and we see the same results. The TLM parishioners will likely be aware and affirm. The NOM parishioners, on average, will not. But here’s the pastoral approach: permit what is holy. The Mass is holy, so do more to promote the worship of God and less to restrict it. It’s NOT about preference. It’s about the most deeply personal event this side of heaven: one’s Eucharistic encounter with God. DON’T mess with people on this. Let them pray and commune with Jesus where it’s valid. Worry about the people NOT bothering to commune with the Eucharistic Lord. Physician, heal thyself, we heard Jesus remark at Mass in the NOM this week. Let us listen to the Teacher.
What the data says is that Pope Francis, who must be aware of the difference in adherence to the faith, is not specifically concerned about adherence to the faith, rather in conformity to a position.
In light of Pope Francis’s “irregular regularization” of SSPX, it’s unfortunate that SSPX attenders were not included.
I can see including them, but as a separate group. Just to see how different the subculture is, if nothing else. Same with sedes.
Maybe they ran out of time, money, resources, etc.
Rod: Pope Francis never conducted an “irregular regularization” of SSPX. This term you keep on mentioning does not rescind the schism of the SSPX. Similar to Bishop Hounder’s claim that Pope Francis told him privately that the SSPX is not in schism is just that: a claim, a hearsay, not supported by any official and published papal declaration. To be specific and updated, Francis has kept what JPII and BXVI has always maintained about the status of the SSPX. Because of the SSPX’s persistent disobedience and refusal to accept Vatican II reforms especially the liturgy and teachings about religious freedom, it is in schism, meaning it is outside the communion of the Church. In the letter dated July 16, 2021, that accompanies Traditionis Custodes, Pope Francis specifically mentions SSPX to be in “schism.” Here’s the 2nd paragraph, fully quoted:
“Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, promulgated by St. Pius V and edited by St. John XXIII in 1962, for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The faculty — granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984 and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988 — was above all MOTIVATED BY THE DESIRE TO FOSTER THE HEALING OF THE SCHISM WITH THE MOVEMENT OF MONS. LEFEBVRE. With the ecclesial intention of restoring the unity of the Church, the Bishops were thus asked to accept with generosity the “just aspirations” of the faithful who requested the use of that Missal.”
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html
Read also the longer compilation of quotations of papal declarations about the SSPX posted in this thread above.
You are ill-informed as to what defines “schism” assuming you are a Catholic Deacon.
This isn’t 1988 and as I have now pointed out several times which you cannot seem to grasp regardless of how absolutely obvious it is, by the very act of granting faculties, other permissions, praise and recognition, the Pope himself makes absolutely positive SSPX is NOT “in schism”. Papal Visitator Bishop Athanasius Schneider who you also reject has made that point as well.
This is made clear by the way not just recently, but in the many rulings by the Church (already provided) granting approval to meet Mass obligation at SSPX chapels as well as the famous “Hawaii 6” case where Catholics attending SSPX Sacraments were excommunicated by their Bishop only to have the Prefect of the CDF, then-Cardinal Ratzinger, NULLIFY that excommunication.
Indeed, one faculty, worldwide permission to absolve in the confessional, is uniquely granted to SSPX priests. No other priests possess that faculty. SSPX priest do not need to obtain faculties from local ordinaries as do other Catholic priests.
You apparently bear a grudge or hold some bitterness toward SSPX for some reason and have shown not only ignorance of material facts but also a refusal to accept the decisions of the Popes on this topic.
I suggest you do some study on the subject before making sweeping proclamations which in fact erode your own argument.
I’ll take the repeated and crystal clear public position by the Papal Visitator Bishop Schneider over your personal grudges and opinions any day.
“Some of the preliminary results suggest the TLM community, while drawn to a different aesthetic than the typical parish experience, holds onto the beliefs of the Catholic faith more consistently than the wider population of Catholics.”
“While his predecessor’s position towards the Latin Mass community can be broadly characterized as one of accommodation, Pope Francis has taken a more confrontational approach. But why?” The answer is quoted above.
To call Francis a scoundrel is charitable; he is hell bent (perhaps literally) on the Bride of Christ’s degradation, evidence of which is legion.
There are serious problems with the 2019 Pew Survey of Catholic belief in the Real Presence:
From:
New study says 69 percent of Massgoers believe in Real Presence; measuring belief called tricky task
Gina Christian
June 24, 2024
Excerpt:
A new study suggests that Catholic belief in the Real Presence may be higher than previous data indicated – but measuring that belief accurately remains a tricky task for researchers.
Regular Mass attendance, however, has emerged as a key factor in determining an individual’s belief in the Real Presence.
On June 3, Vinea Research, a Maryland-based market research firm that focuses on the Catholic Church in the U.S., released “Do Catholics Truly Believe in the Real Presence?” – which concluded that 69 percent of Mass-going Catholics believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Higher levels of belief correlated with more frequent Mass attendance, Vinea found.
Vinea’s seven-page report revisited a landmark 2019 survey by Pew Research that found only 31 percent of Catholics in the U.S. believed that “during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus.” Pew reported at the time that among Catholics attending Mass at least once a week, 63 percent believed in transubstantiation – the theological term used to describe the change of the Eucharistic bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ – but another 37 percent believed “the bread and wine are symbols.”
Yet the wording of Pew’s question was problematic, as were the response options, said Vinea founder and president Hans Plate, who has extensive experience in conducting market research for pharmaceutical and health care industries.
From
Beware the Polls You Read: Breaking Down the Problem with Pew’s Science & Religion Poll
Andrew Aghapour and Michael Schulson
January 19, 2016
Excerpt:
But It’s Science!
Public opinion polling ends up existing in a strange gray space between science and journalism. A Pew report is definitively not a scientific paper: its goal is to serve media outlets, not to advance a body of academic inquiry. It’s not peer-reviewed. Its methods lack the scope and rigor of a formal social science study.
That doesn’t make these reports useless. Pew is performing a kind of large-scale journalism. But, because it involves numbers and stats, journalists generally treat polls as if they’re hard science, establishing basic facts about the American public, rather than with the kind of cautious skepticism that, in theory, journalists should bring to any story.
The Prefect for the Dicastery for Divine Worship, Cardinal Arthur Roche, is absolutely correct in thinking that the TLM has a different liturgical theology than the Novus Ordo. The 1,600-year-old TLM never equivocated that the Mass is a sacrifice, though unbloody. The Novus Ordo rite downplays this core aspect, in favor of the notion of the Mass as a communal meal. 87% of the traditional Roman Missal was either deleted, abridged or rewritten to produce the Missal of the Mass of Paul VI.
Our Lord said that by their fruits shall you know them! Look at traditional orders and their coming down with young healthy and pious young people. What happened under Benedict xvl was a good thing and I personally believed that the Church benefitted spirituality totally from it. All what people want is that to be restored, where both sides can learn from each other! Sedevacantists are NOT the way!
The premise of many articles like this is that a major premise of Traditionis Custodes (i.e. that the TLM has been instrumentalized for ideology in an anti-ecclesial way) is false. But then we read in the comments evidence that the elements in these communities which are a cause of concern to the Vatican really do exist. The chief visible shepherd of the Church decided on a discipline to address this. It seems to me that one result of this pastoral discipline is to produce more evidence that the Vatican’s premise was correct.
Internet comments sections are an accurate polling method now?
The NO looks a lot worse in the comments sections too. On that basis, should we restrict the NO to just one parish in any given hour’s-drive radius?
Even with just discipline, it is a rare child who responds to being spanked with “Thank you sir, may I have another?” Most parents don’t take it as reason to keep smacking the kid until he says something like that.
As He said, he came for the sinner, not the righteous. If the TLM saves a sinner where the current method doesn’t, what is wrong with that?
The point is that SSPX is in schism. Schneider, Strickland, Hounder and other sympathetic bishops are not competent to make official church judgments about the SSPX status that have been consistently declared schismatic by the Popes. Did you read all the cited quotations above?
Question for Deacon Dom: In your opinion, are SSPX Masses valid or not?
The simple answer to this question is best viewed and framed in the fundamental distinction in Canon Law pertinent to this matter, that is, between “validity” (whether the sacrament of the Eucharist is truly celebrated) and “licitness” (whether the Mass is lawfuly celebrated according to Church law).
SSPX Masses are “valid” in terms of the consecration of the Eucharist since SSPX priests are “validly” ordained. They have been ordained by “validly” ordained bishops but whose episcopal ordinations were “illicit” or “unlawful” because Archbishop Lefevbre disobeyed the explicit papal command not to ordain bishops and so did not have Pope John Paul II’s permission to ordain them. (Watch any video of this 1988 ordinations where Lefebvre surreptitiously skipped this part where the Pope’s letter authorizing the ordinations was to be read to the gathered assembly. By this act of disobedience, Lefevbre and the bishops were automatically excommunicated.)
For a Mass to be considered valid, it must meet and have the following criteria, including proper matter, form, and intention. SSPX Masses generally adhere to these criteria. Despite following the Tridentine Vetus Ordo rather than the Vatican II Novus Ordo, SSPX Masses are considered valid.
SSPX Masses are “not licit” or “illicit” (unlawful) because the SSPX priests presiding over them are in “schism” which makes them separate from and outside the communion of the Church. While Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications of the SSPX bishops in 2009, the SSPX still does not have canonical status in the Church, meaning their Masses are celebrated without official canonical sanction of, from, and by the Church.
I assure you that I know the difference between valid and licit. I was only interested in whether you thought the SSPX Masses were valid. Thanks for responding.
Please scroll and review the posts I’ve made in response to Deacon Dom.
Meaning no disrespect, but he is totally uninformed about what schism is (in fact, rejecting as he does the divisions of Popes and their agents on this matter…curiously he crowds it himself!) and also demonstrates ignorance of the material facts involving SSPX.
For an authority, please google Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Pope Francis’s official Papal Visitator (inspector) of SSPX. He has made many clear public (oral and written) statements on SSPX.
As for Mass obligations:
https://catholicfamilynews.com/blog/2023/04/28/sspx-masses-and-fulfilling-the-sunday-obligation/
Also:
https://wdtprs.com/2021/12/ask-father-not-again-does-attending-an-sspx-mass-fulfill-ones-sunday-obligation/
Also, faculties granted to SSPX (to absolve w/o needing to obtain faculties from local ordinaries as all other priests must) prove that SSPX is not “in schism” as Deacon Dom insists (against the administrative decisions of the Popes as cited, by the way…).
Thanks and God bless. Your questions are “valid”!
Let us not forget the contribution of the Late Bp. Vitus Huonder who, as a 2 year visitor of the SSPX on behalf of the Vatican, concluded that it was ROME who owed the SSPX a full-throated apology, NOT the reverse.
Since the authors do not ever state what they mean by a “rejection of Vatican II,” none of this article is really worth discussing. Like most traditionalists, I accept that Vatican II was an authentic council of the Church, and like most traditionalists, I maintain that it was an unmitigated disaster for the Church. Moreover, the fact that Vatican II was such a colossal failure is not open to discussion as far as I am concerned. To deny this fact places one squarely among people who are unmolested by reality. Am I “schismatic” because of this attitude? If so, I would have to say it is better to be “schismatic” in this way than to be insane.
The worst thing about the revival of a permanent diaconate is the multiplication Deacon Doms in the Church. The envy of what these “glory boys” cannot do just eats at them…
Timothy: There’s no such thing as a “Permanent” diaconate. There is an Order of Deacon. Period.
As for your complaint, you might take it in prayer to Sts Stephen and Lawrence.
Regarding the rejection of Vatican II: The overwhelming use of contraceptives, IVF use among the Catholic infertile, abortions, divorce/remarriage (or a wedding outside of the Church and often to folks who are not Catholic or even Christian: all of this indicates that the laity have largely rejected the Church’s teachings on “family life.”
And yet the Bishops don’t seem particularly up in arms about all those things. But attend a Mass that is in Latin with the priest’s back to the congregation, oh can’t have that!
The hierarchy’s priorities seem completely out of whack.
As Archbishop Lefebvre pointed out many times, the priests of the SSPX accept more of the teachings in the documents of Vatican II than do the average diocesan priests. Indeed, it was not until I learned of the existence of the SSPX that I ever encountered priests who were not embarrassed by Catholic orthodoxy. The younger priests today are, by and large, a much better breed than those one ran across in the 1970s and 1980s. But I would still wager that fewer than half of all Novus Ordo priests really believe anything at all. That and that alone is why they are so hostile to traditionalism, the Latin Mass, and the laity and priests who long for a return to tradition.
Bravo. Well said, Mr. Williams.
I started as an altar boy prior to Vatican II, and had to learn the TLM (that’s how I learned Latin!). When Vatican II changes were implemented, most were readily accepted by the laity – including having a Mass they could better understand, a more ecumenical relationship with other Christian denominations, and being able to see the Priest (not just his back). A few (maybe more than a few) felt we lost something special when we lost the Communion rail, and that may be valid.
However, there is one aspect of the TLM that many tend to forget. Regardless of where I went, the Mass was exactly the same – no problem with different languages, it was the same everywhere. We went from all Masses in Latin, to one Mass each Sunday (often a High Mass), to one Mass per month. Now, it’s hard to find someone who has ever attended a TLM, much less a High Mass. I feel we have lost something.
What’s interesting – my sister (who is a Franciscan Sister) is only a few years younger than me, and hardly recalls the TLM at all.
The priest was not turning his back to the congregation but was facing the East. Read, https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/08/21/why-were-facing-east/
You’re schismatic….No you’re schismatic….
Wasn’t that shouting match the cause of the breach between Greek and Latin and the earlier split with Copts, Armenians and the Church of the East?
I suspect some would enjoy a re run.
Cui bono?
«Protestantism» maybe?
The discarding of Latin has in effect given rise, by default, to the national church.
Masses in vernaculars reinforce separatism and may encourage congregational novelty.
The confusing variety of «protestantisms» and the petty «nationalist» and jurisdictional divisions in Orthodoxy ought to be a warning.
Right. God struck Babel’s inhabitants with the multi-language curse, and their tower toppled.
Whether or not the intention of the vernacular in post-VCII liturgy was to divide, the effect certainly has been to weaken the faith. Meanwhile, we have a lot of yak-yak-yakkety-yak-yak all hour long at the typical Sunday NOM. Then we need Pew to point out Who we’ve neglected to see, to welcome, recognize, honor, to thank, adore and implore.
How many talkers could sit through a 3-5 minute Gradual sung in Latin polyphony? A survey on that would interest me!
At the institution of the Eucharist, Jesus and the apostles did not speak Latin. They spoke their everyday language, which was Aramaic, at the first Mass. Jesus did not turn his back to face the wall ad oriented. The Lord faced the apostles during the Last Supper. The Mass of the Ages is in everyday languages (not Latin) and ad populum (not ad orientem).
You can argue all day long but the TRUTH is: One Christ
One Truth
One Church
WHOEVER REJECTS THE CHURCH, REJECTS CHRIST JESUS
Unite to the CHURCH OF ALL AGES, the MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST FOREVER. Labor and offer up in the Church whether a bad pope or a bad priest or a lacking parish. Labor in the Church to raise her up. Jesus Christ will rescue His Bride. Pray for unity. IF you call yourselves the only holy remnant than the Holy Spirit is gone. Did Jesus have His back to the apostles at the Last Supper? The Church follows Him, because the Church is HE!
The church, dear Edith, is an entrustment. This pope was handed on the faith and, in turn, he is required to hand it on. He is magnificently failing at that task. It’s is clear that the SSPX, those that are true to the Catholic Mass are actually more true to the specifications of the liturgy as desired by the Council fathers. You need to do a bit more homework before you take up the task of “educating” others. God bless!
The author gives a but a passing comment to the crux of the matter. Cardinal Roche, defending the latest restrictions, plainly stated that the Mass of ++Pope St. Pius V, the Mass codified and established for all time, did not represent the current theology of their church. That sentence sums up the entirety of why the current Pope and his sycophants must destroy the Tridentine Mass and the Parishes that offer it. It is anathema to the Ape of the church that so many tried to warn us was coming!
Bingo.
It’s amazing how conservatives are being persecuted both by government and within the church. I used to wonder how and why people will accept the anti-christ in the end times. Now I see how it is possible. Why do these bishops and priests “fear” the sacred and reverend mass? They should answer that question. Tell me specifically what part of the Latin Mass is not holy and does not provide reverence to our almighty God? What does God want us to do? Vatican II was a schism in itself and yet they are going to argue anyone attending Latin Mass is causing the schism. They created the schism by moving away from tradition and embracing the protestant approach to mass. Would God really want to get rid of Latin Mass? Wasn’t it Jesus who instituted the mass? I would prefer to celebrate the way Jesus instructed the apostles. Not for nothing, a friend of Klaus Schwab and the UN 2030 agenda is an enemy of the people. Pope Francis should look in the mirror when he “hates” conservative values and talks about loving neighbors while hating the ones that take moral obligations seriously.
Please read, study, and comprehend the compilation of papal quotes I posted above. As I said no bishop is competent to declare the SSPX ceasing its schismatic status. To be noted especially is the latest spin of the SSPX using Bishop Hounder’s claim that Pope Francis told him in a private conversation that the SSPX is not in schism. Hounder’s is just that: a claim, a hearsay, not supported by any official papal declaration duly published by the Vatican in its various media platforms. In matters like this, the final and supreme authority is the Pope, not any bishop. So disregard Schneider here. It is a public relations trick on the part of the SSPX to use sympathetic (but either clueless or intentionally deceptive) Bishops like Schneider, Strickland, Hounder and others supposedly claiming the SSPX to be not in schism. Read the the full and selected compilations of papal quotations posted in this thread which consistently affirm SSPX’s schismatic status. The recent goodwill gestures of the Popes like the lifting of the bishops’ excommunication and granting of seasonal sacramental faculties do not mean and cannot be equated with the lifting of schism. They are not the same species. The SSPX bishops and priests as part and members of this group and because of the schismatic canonical status of the group are in schism. There is no hair splitting between the group and members here. Aside from being “illicit” or “illegal” (that is “unlawful,” having no canonical status: think of the comparative analogy of illegal immigrants or undocumented aliens) bishops and priests, the SSPX clergy remain in “schism” or separated from and outside the communion of the Church. This schism can only be rescinded when the SSPX bishops and priests cease and reverse the root of this schism which is Lefevbre’s prideful (“I am more Catholic than the Pope and the Council”) and the SSPX’s primal disobedience in resisting and rejecting Vatican II’s liturgical reforms and teaching on religious freedom. Again, please read, study, and comprehend the compilation of papal quotes I posted above.
You express confusion and also an oddly bitter stance on the issue of SSPX.
I gladly accept Official Papal Visitator Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s assessment of SSPX over your verbose and baseless rants.
I do thank you for the opportunity to provide the material facts relevant to disproving your claims.
Who is Bishop Schneider? He is not and does not have the authority to declare the SSPX as not in schism. His assessment of the SSPX is not official Church position. It is only what it is: a personal opinion of a sympathizer which has no consequence whatsoever. This matter is above his rank in the hierarchy, or as it is said, it is above his pay grade. The SSPX is in schism and will remain so until it reverses and ceases its and Archbishop Lefevbre’s prideful (“I am more Catholic than the Pope and the Council”) resistance to and rejection of Vatican II liturgical reforms and teaching on religious freedom.
The real question is who are you?
The answer is “An individual with opinions. An individual with no authority”.
Bishop Schneider by appointment of the Pope has been put in a very unique position to comment on the status of SSPX. His comments are solidly in line with the rulings of the Popes over the years, rulings you reject.
Rather than judging others, spend some time evaluating your own standing before the Church who’s authority you reject.
The point is as Catholics we take the words of the Pope as published in Vatican media platforms like its website as official Church teaching and position. The Pope’s is the final word on any governance matter like the canonical status of the SSPX. That’s why I invite you to read, study, and comprehend the compilation of pertinent quotations of papal declarations (not my claims-as you perceive erroneously, or Schneider’s assessment, or Hounder’s hearsay of a claim that Pope Francis told him in a private conversation that SSPX is not in schism) posted in this thread. The sympathetic bishops (Schneider, Strickland, Hounder) are not the final and supreme authority here and their words are not the official Church teaching or position. Roma locuta, causa finita est.
BTW, I am not making any claims here about the SSPX. I have instead posted here compilations of quotations from official papal declarations and judgments from John Paul II through Benedict XVI to Francis. These are all supreme and final Church position about the current condition of the SSPX that can easily be accessed through the Vatican website. They are not mere hearsay or assessment of any bishop or any papal visitator. They all are consistent in proclaiming the continued schismatic state of the SSPX. I invite you to read, study and comprehend them.
Some documents you reference can be found on the Vatican website, but you choose to make interpretations that satisfy your own apparent and bizarre bitterness toward SSPX but are not in agreement with the actual binding rulings on specific questions provided by the Popes through the agencies they founded to address specific questions presented to them. Your approach is that of a Protestant: You take a document and make a ruling founded on your own self-assumed authority which in fact is no a authority at all. Your declarations thus oppose the actual and specific rulings made by the Popes and thru the Popes.
The questions that concern Catholics (permission to attend SSPX Mass, receive absolution, accept authority of Papal rulings and rulings thru Papal authorities designated to make such rulings, etc) have been favorable to SSPX and provide certainty of conscience for those attending SSPX chapels.
What you have done here is simply offer self-defeating arguments, verbose spew exposing a bizarre vendetta against an organization simply doing what the Church has always done.
The proper interpreters for Papal documents are the Popes and their agents, not you.
When dubia have been posed the Church has ruled that Catholics may meet their Mass obligation at SSPX chapels. Additionally, faculties have been granted for absolution and while no invalidity of marriages was declared, Pope Francis, in order so that “uneasiness of conscience on the part of the faithful who adhere to the Society of St. Pius X as well as any uncertainty regarding the validity of the sacrament of marriage may be alleviated” a method was provided. All of this in combination represents an obvious form of regularization. A reminder which you should know, but obviously in caring so little about the structures of authority you reject, the Popes do not establish their interpretations, decisions and permissions on your personal and private interpretations.
You have no authority, yet repeatedly you pretend you do.
You continue to assert like a Protestant reading the Bible that your private interpretation of Papal documents is correct…while the Church has provided the proper interpretations which you reject.
Bishop Schneider himself has made many public statements which support the favorable interpretations provided by the Popes through their agents.
Again…you merely expose a schismatic attitude in rejecting the decisions of the Popes and the interpretations provided by their agents along with those of Bishop Schneider who you deride.
support such an assertion.
Please read, study, and comprehend the compilation of relevant quotations from papal declarations posted here in this thread. You have to be dishonest to conclude I inserted my interpretations here. That’s why it’s important as Catholics to read the official Church teaching or position direct from the source itself like the text of a church teaching document (thanks to technology, one does not need to go to a chancery or seminary library – as it used to – to access these documents today as they are now available in the Vatican website), not from an interpreter even if that interpreter is a bishop, theologian, or canon lawyer. Take the word of the Pope not of any bishop. Do not repeat the error of the founding SSPX members who followed the word of Lefebvre rather than of the Popes and the Second Vatican Council that ultimately led them into schism, that is, becoming separate from and outside the communion of the Church.
To “Deacon Dom
SEPTEMBER 10, 2024 AT 3:30 PM”
There is no “dishonesty” in pointing people to the RULINGS by the Church on the specific questions the faithful have such as whether they can meet their Mass obligation at SSPX chapels, etc. I’ve provided those above.
And yes, you have taken documents and imposed your own opinions on them, opinions which contradict the responses to dubia provided by the Popes thru the CDF set up specifically to deal with such questions.
“Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, promulgated by St. Pius V and edited by St. John XXIII in 1962, for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The faculty — granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984 and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988 — was above all MOTIVATED BY THE DESIRE TO FOSTER THE HEALING OF THE SCHISM WITH THE MOVEMENT OF MONS. LEFEBVRE. With the ecclesial intention of restoring the unity of the Church, the Bishops were thus asked to accept with generosity the “just aspirations” of the faithful who requested the use of that Missal.”
(Letter of Pope Francis, dated July 16, 2021, that accompanies Traditionis Custodes, specifically mentioning SSPX to be in “schism.” Part of the compilation of other papal statements posted here in this thread. Easily verifiable at the Vatican website.)
Yes, another document that contradicts your assessment of ongoing schism.
Read it again.
Read what it actually says, not what you want it to say.
First, the letter is not a binding document.
Second, the reference applies to diocesan TLM & ED communities.
Third, it references what the writer (Francis) assumes existed in the past. The reference is entirely about the 1984/88 indults and historical events of that time.
If what you say about SSPX is true, the praise and ministry authority granted by Francis (and previous Popes starting in the ’90’s) would not have been granted.
AGAIN (how many times do I have to say this?) POPES DO NOT & CANNOT GRANT FACULTIES TO SCHISMATICS. Popes don’t GRANT faculties to true schismatics like United Methodists or Lutherans at all, and certainly do not with intention that somehow by the granting they will come back into communion with the Church.
The only way to read that letter in light of the rulings made by the Popes and Francis specifically is that the “schism” (assuming it existed…their own decisions conflict with that assessment) is that it has been healed.
This of course makes sense in light of Pope Francis’s praise of SSPX & GRANTING of faculties himself!
PLUS, in his administration of Traditionis Custodes etc all his efforts have been directed at diocesan TLM’s*, not SSPX. Thru it ALL he has left SSPX alone, in fact, advancing the case of SSPX as it has been incrementally been advanced and SSPX has been increasingly recognized since the crisis of 1987/88.
* You prefer “vetus ordo”. So do I. It is indeed the old order, one may say the “old path”, “old paths” being the trails upon which in Tradition we are called to walk, unlike many who declare, “We will not walk”.
“Thus saith the Lord: Stand ye on the ways, and see and ask for the old paths which is the good way, and walk ye in it: and you shall find refreshment for your souls. And they said: we will not walk.”
Jer 6:16
I do not purport to know the mind of Francis. What I do know however is that he has been exceedingly gracious and even protective of SSPX.
Possibly this goes back to his years in Argentina when it is said he had a good relationship with none other than Father Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of SSPX.
In light of his apparent intention to increasingly restrict TLM/VO in the diocesan communities, he has treated SSPX with much grace. He even admits the faithful have “just aspirations” to the ’62 Missal!
His are not just nice words, either, as he has literally promoted SSPX in the GRANTING of faculties, passing of praise by other bishops (& that not just in a non-binding letter, but rather in a binding document announcing new faculties) AND in what he has NOT done: namely, condemn current SSPX ministry.
In the end, your argument is not with me. It is with the Church and the Popes, specifically earlier Popes who nullified excommunications, permitted assistance at SSPX Mass to meet Mass obligation and this Pope in his granting of faculties, path to witnessing of marriages (while never calling into question the validity of SSPX marriages) and leaving SSPX out of his increasing incremental suppression of TLM/VO in the diocesan world.
ALL of this has occurred while SSPX has changed nothing in its ministry and doctrinal positions.
Your fight is with the Church and the Popes, not with me. I simply point out their concrete, undeniable decisions that increasingly favor SSPX.
It’s you who’s dishonestly doing the interpretation of the Popes’ words. Classic SSPX spin. The Popes have been clear as the compilation of their statements show: the SSPX remain in schism. It’s not the claims of sympathizer bishops in official or unofficial capacities that can rescind the schism. That’s why the SSPX misinformation and disinformation campaign declaring it is no longer in schism does not produce evidence of papal statements to support the claim. This is because there is none. As this compilation shows the Popes have been consistent and clear in judging the SSPX to be separate from and outside the communion of the Church. The SSPX deception campaign only presents the friendly bishops’ claims and the goodwill gestures of the Popes towards the SSPX and misleadingly equate them to be the rescinding of its schism. They do not. What the SSPX actively hides and which it does not want Catholics to know is precisely compiled in this post of direct quotations from the Popes: the SSPX is in schism. It will remain so only until it reverses its rejection of Vatican II liturgical reforms and teaching on religious freedom. The matter that caused the schism remains and so the schism stays.
Deacon Dom…even the USCCB disagrees with you in response to dubium as I noted.
At this point I really don’t think you have a clue what “schism” is or how the Church functions.
As I’ve said, your argument is not with me. Your agonizing fight is with the Popes and Church who have indicated Catholics may meet their Mass obligation at SSPX chapels and be absolved of their sins by any SSPX priest anywhere in the world even without local granting of faculties, a faculty no other priests possess. Think about that! SSPX is actually FAVORED by the Pope in the granting of this unique faculty! This is a simple set of unarguable facts and we are very happy in regard to them. 🙂
Another interesting fact along those lines is that while SSPX has simply plodded along, changing nothing, doing wonderful ministry just as the Church always has, blessing the lives of thousands, saving souls, it is the Vatican that has over time has conceded ground in decision after decision till as I noted, with the pontificate of Francis, we have a situation where SSPX ministers with utterly clear approval of the Pope himself.
Your continued squealing about “schism” is merely the ranting of an embittered mind objecting to the concrete decisions of Popes in the past and Francis in the present.
You just can’t get away from the fact that Francis has tied up nearly all the loose ends which is why there is no better way to describe SSPX today than “irregularly regularized”.
The Pope doesn’t need the method and instruction of “Deacon Dom” to make decisions pertaining to Catholics and Catholic orders and apostolates.
You don’t matter. You possess no authority, contribute no input, make no decisions. A Pope can grant approval to any order and…Francis has done so with SSPX.
We who are blessed by SSPX ministry have the clear decisions of the Popes to rely on, while you keep up some sort of apparently jealous whining. I suppose you will go on and on and on about it. I can’t stop you. I can only pray that Jesus heals whatever odd embitterment drives you on this subject.
I pray you find peace.
It is hard to believe there are still dinosaurs like you in existence. Your Vatican II Novus Ordo church is in full retreat and self destruction, but you ramble on and on about traditionalism, the Latin Mass, the SSPX… Good thing for you there is a flourishing traditionalist movement for you to excoriate. Anything to distract attention from the heretical pornocracy in Rome must be a blessed relief to people who cannot face reality.
Again the Big Data on the Novus Ordo and the Vetus Ordo:
225,000 parishes worldwide : with VO, 1,700 only
18,000 parishes in the U.S.: with VO, 700 only
Which one is a dinosaur?
You mistakenly confuse “secularism” with “Vatican II” for the decline of church life in the West. That’s the error and falsehood (or ignorance) advanced by VO advocates to smear the NO. Sociological data debunk that argument. The religious decline in the West is not only true for Catholicism but for all churches and religions as well, so it cannot be due to Vatican II. Read Charles Taylor. Even the VO movement has now plateaued. In the Rest, the Church is booming and Catholics are nourished by the NO. Watch those Masses with the Pope in SE Asia and Oceania these days. They’re not in VO, but in NO.
Vatican II was compromised by the very start . . . “as the twig is bent so grows the tree.” The fact is we will never know for sure how to measure the success of the Council given that 893 Scholars of the church worked for 2 years developing 91 schema that were summarily dismissed by the gaggle along the Rhine. The coveted and glorious “documents” therefrom produced were, at best, on the fly and full of ambiguities which later on became the default position for those interested in moving AWAY from Catholicism to some Catho-protestant hybrid. We have merely to refer to the words of the architect of the new mass himself for evidence that there was subterfuge afoot: (referring to the Catholic Mass) “we have to eliminate all the stumbling stones to our separated brethren” – Annibale Bugnini. Gone was the Confiteor, gone the sublimity of Gregorian chant, gone the offering of incense, gone the calendar, gone the Ember days, gone reference to the Saints, gone reference to Our Blessed Mother. So anti-Catholic and “accommodating” had Catholicism become to what others HATED so much about the church that the 10-years after the Council were referred to as the decade without Mary. I now attend an SSPX Chapel. Our parish has 6 priests. 1 Prior, 1 Pastor, 1 Principal, 2 missionaries and 1 priest in training who came from the Novus Ordo. Our parish of 150-175 families has given various traditional orders 26 vocations, Benedictine, Franciscan, Carmelite and SSPX. I will never again return to the Novus Ordo, to a malformation of what glory the Mass, in its most Catholic expression, offers the soul. If you wish to reach the lights located high on the ceiling, you reach for an extension ladder; not a step stool. The LM is an extension ladder, the NO mass/mess a step stool.
Although I was one of the authors of the American petition to Pope Francis to maintain the Latin Mass, I do not regularly attend the service. Nor am I part of any organized group or extremist cabal. I consider my advocacy a moderate and commonsensical position.
I felt that this traditional and legitimate rite, so beloved by many, should remain one of the options for Catholic worship. The “universal” Church needs to have one doctrine, but there is no harm and much virtue in allowing a diversity of established rituals available to faithful Catholics. The Latin Mass is a beautiful rite that speaks deeply to many people.
I don’t usually meddle in Church issues. I’m just an ordinary sinner, thankful for the grace of God. I go to Mass and receive the sacraments. For fifty years I have watched my fellow Catholics fight about this issue. Progressive Catholics need to be more inclusive and tolerant. The Church is stronger with the Latin Mass as one of its options.