Hoyos: FSSP Priests Expected to Concelebrate NO Masses

[Joshua]

I doubt it.

Read for yourself, friend (Post #56):

Logically, if a priest rejects in principle the same rite that the Pope uses, he is not going to be in full communion with that Pope. 

God bless,
JRS

[jovan66102]

How can we support such a missal?

 

We 'support' (inverted commas because I don't like it any more than you do) it because, despite your paranoiac maunderings, it is a validly promulgated Liturgy of our Holy Church and when licitly celebrated according to the rubrics as promulgated it is a perfectly valid Propitiatory Sacrifice. This is not to say that it is not deficient in Catholic Catechesis or that it has not been badly translated.

 

On the translation, years ago I corresponded with His Eminence Augustin, Cardinal Mayer, President of the PCED. When he pointed out the indefectibility of the Church in promulgating liturgical documents, such as the NOM, I asked him straight up if the translations shared in that indefectibilty. He replied that they did not.

 

Argue about the translation if you like. It is not indefectible, but the NOM as promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI is protected by the indefectibilty of our Holy Church, despite its many, many faults.

[Joshua]

How can we support such a missal?

We 'support' (inverted commas because I don't like it any more than you do) it because, despite your paranoiac maunderings, it is a validly promulgated Liturgy of our Holy Church and when licitly celebrated according to the rubrics as promulgated it is a perfectly valid Propitiatory Sacrifice. This is not to say that it is not deficient in Catholic Catechesis or that it has not been badly translated.

On the translation, years ago I corresponded with His Eminence Augustin, Cardinal Mayer, President of the PCED. When he pointed out the indefectibility of the Church in promulgating liturgical documents, such as the NOM, I asked him straight up if the translations shared in that indefectibilty. He replied that they did not.

Argue about the translation if you like. It is not indefectible, but the NOM as promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI is protected by the indefectibilty of our Holy Church, despite its many, many faults.

Grazie, Jovan. .

God bless,
JRS

[PeterII]

It would certainly help matters if people actually read my posts before commenting:

Me -

 It is absolutely possible for a Catholic to hold that the Holy See can promulgate something evil. It is called abuse of authority.

Joshua -

You are absolutely right. The Holy See is incapable of promulgating something intrinsically evil. This is why the FSSP (nor the SSPX if I recall correctly) hold the NO to be evil.

The SSPX rejects the Novus Ordo in principle.  They are not in "full communion" according to the definition of the Holy Father, nor should they be.  The Holy Father sees no difference between the value of the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Latin Mass.  Pope Benedict says:  

"There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal.  In the  history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture." Summorum Pontificum

 
He is wrong.  

On the translation, years ago I corresponded with His Eminence Augustin, Cardinal Mayer, President of the PCED. When he pointed out the indefectibility of the Church in promulgating liturgical documents, such as the NOM, I asked him straight up if the translations shared in that indefectibilty. He replied that they did not.  Argue about the translation if you like. It is not indefectible, but the NOM as promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI is protected by the indefectibilty of our Holy Church, despite its many, many faults.

Cardinal Mayer is also wrong.  He gave you a theological opinion, not a Church doctrine.  It is possible for liturgical documents and other Church disciplines to be defectible due to their mutability:  

Since, then, it is here expressly said that those definitions on which the infallibility of the Pope exercises itself are per se unalterable, it follows as a matter of course, that all those laws which are issued form the time to time by the Pope in matters of discipline, and which are alterable, are, by the very reason that they are alterable, not included in the de fide definition of Vatican Council" - The True and the False Infallibility of the Popes, by Bishop Joseph Fessler

The infallibility of the Pope...does not mean that he cannot err in his measures concerning the discipline and practice of the Church, for example: sanctioning or dissolving an Order, precepts of worship, ecclesiastical rules etc." Rev. Charles J. Callan, O.P

Also, the notion that the NOM could be promulgated indefectibly yet contain "many, many faults" is contradictory and nonsensical.  Incidentally, many argue that the NOM was not properly promulgated to begin with. 

[PeterII]

I doubt it.

Read for yourself, friend (Post #56):

Logically, if a priest rejects in principle the same rite that the Pope uses, he is not going to be in full communion with that Pope.

God bless,
JRS

The Pope determines who is in "full communion" with him, and who is not.  He clearly states that anyone who rejects celebrating the Novus Ordo in principle is not in "full communion" with him.  

Needless to say, in  order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to  the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according  to the new books.

Yet we have priests and prospective priests in the FSSP who in principle exclude celebrating the Novus Ordo, yet claim to be in "full communion" as defined by the Holy Father.  They are misleading the faithful.  

[confiteor1]

Are those of us (I speak for myself and no one else) who attend the Novus Ordo while heartily detesting it (or at least detesting its translation and manner of celebration) in "full communion" with the Pope?  It is an off-topic question, yet one that is on my mind of late.

[PeterII]

Are those of us (I speak for myself and no one else) who attend the Novus Ordo while heartily detesting it (or at least detesting its translation and manner of celebration) in "full communion" with the Pope?  It is an off-topic question, yet one that is on my mind of late.

If you detest it out of principle and not just for aesthetic qualities or unessential things, I don't think the Pope would consider you to be in "full communion" with him, but rather "partial communion" like the SSPX.  Until the Pope gives up his errors regarding the New Mass (he thinks it is of equal value to the old) all knowledgeable Catholics should be in "partial communion" with him. 

We should define "partial communion" as communion with the Pope, but not with his errors. 

It is unfortunate that you force yourself to attend something that you rightfully detest.     

[confiteor1]

The question, I think, is whether I can truly detest the Novus  Ordo Missae -- insofar as it is an intrinsically valid and propitiary  sacrifice rendered unto God -- and remain a faithful Catholic.  Certainly I can (and do) detest the translation and typical  "performance" of the NOM on any given Sunday.
 
 I can (and do)  disagree with the Pope when he claims that the NOM (in its strict  rubrical form) is on par with and equally "holy" as the TLM. Yet I  cannot detest what he, as the Supreme Lawgiver of the visible Church, has given as a lawful Mass.
 
  Yes, it is unfortunate that I must (for a variety of personal reasons)  force myself to attend a liturgy which at a certain level I detest. Yet  for the reasons stated above, I believe that I can offer it up in good  conscience as a sacrifice.
 

[Joshua]

It would certainly help matters if people actually read my posts before commenting:

Sorry about that. I thought I had seen "impossible" rather than "possible".

The SSPX rejects the Novus Ordo in principle. They are not in "full communion" according to the definition of the Holy Father, nor should they be.

Their rejection of the NO is not the reason why they are not in full communion.

The Pope determines who is in "full communion" with him, and who is not.  He clearly states that anyone who rejects celebrating the Novus Ordo in principle is not in "full communion" with him.  

... and yet they are, Peter, as defined by the Pope. As I have said before, the Holy See currently exercises a large degree of latitude and one can hold the NO to be objectively inferior to the TLM and still be considered to be in "full communion".

What does this tell you then of the situation of the SSPX?

BTW ... care to address my question on how the SSPX  can claim full loyalty to the Holy Father yet still reject the NO? As according to your logic, one cannot reject the NO in principle yet remain fully loyal to the Holy Father ...

God bless,
JRS

[PeterII]

[SSPX] rejection of the NO is not the reason why they are not in full communion.

Other reasons for the SSPX's "impartial communion" status are irrelevant to the discussion, as the Holy Father has defined for us what it takes to be in full communion with him here and now regarding the rites of mass.  

... and yet they are, Peter, as defined by the Pope. As I have said before, the Holy See currently exercises a large degree of latitude and one can hold the NO to be objectively inferior to the TLM and still be considered to be in "full communion".

If this is true, then you are saying that the FSSP does not reject celebrating the New Rite in principle.  This means that the FSSP thinks the New Rite is good in essence, but objectively inferior in non-essential ways.  I think that is hog wash.  The New Rite is essentially bad because it does not correspond to the teachings of the Council of Trent which are essential to make the rite good.

Note that I am not saying the mass is bad, I am saying that the rite is bad.  Unfortunately, the Pope does not agree.  He thinks the rite has "value and holiness," and therefore, I cannot be in "full communion" with him if I were a priest, because I would, out of principle, never celebrate that rite.

BTW ... care to address my question on how the SSPX  can claim full loyalty to the Holy Father yet still reject the NO? As according to your logic, one cannot reject the NO in principle yet remain fully loyal to the Holy Father ...  

One can be fully loyal to the Holy Father without being loyal to his errors.  He would not see it that way, because he doesn't think he is in error.  Too bad.