Blog started by a Solemn Latin Mass altar server who does EF/TLMs in the Archdiocese of Toronto under lay- initiative organizations. Also, now apparently, a Catholic Apolgist to some.
SECOND POSTING OF KENNEDY AND THE ``TIME OF CRISIS`` REASON TO ATTEND SSPX (aka FORSAKE THE NOVUS ORDO???)
In his second post, Kennedy chooses to address some of the specific complaints or criticisms against him, and continues to defend the SSPX, now as an adherent as he openly admits, with my emphasis added, "... my family and I have begun to attend an SSPX Chapel, and I cannot see us going back to the Novus Ordo, unless necessity requires for our Sunday Obligation ..." (1) From there Mr. Kennedy responds to two main gripes from his first post and/or the Facebook(TM) comments, but also opens up discussion to some more serious spiritual matter here, particularly the question of crisis in Faith, necessary for him to decide to become fully integrated into the life of the SSPX, and outside of the life of the Church.
The first gripe that he responds to is that the SSPX are literally schismatic. This Mr. Kennedy is correct on, as the matter is one of specific violations of Canon Law and the actors who participated in the actions, as well as the fact that those who were part of it were validly and licitly ordained as Catholic priests, prior to being made bishops. Can participation in the society lead you to schism? Yes, as I covered this in the section on the status of the Society.
The second gripe is that one must believe in ALL parts of the Vatican II council as infallible. This is actually incorrect as even Pope John XXIII, regarded Vatican II as a pastoral council. Where tension between the SSPX and the Vatican lies is in this regard, both under Benedict Emeritus XVI and Francis I, whether by formal negotiation or indirectly through a former secretary of the Pope’s respectively. I will say, however, in defending or countering this gripe, Kennedy used poor source material, as his quotes are taken from a site called "One Peter Five," a website with an anti-Francis and anti Novus Ordo agenda/bias in its media.
Now, while one might think I am allowing the second blog post of Mr. Kennedy to pass, that is wrong, as between the two posts, Mr. Kennedy has brought into the open a deep and concerning issue: Forsaking the Novus Ordo and normal parish life for the SSPX under a spiritual crisis scenario. Kennedy brought this into the open in the following quote: "... I want nothing more than to be a man of God, a saintly father to my children, and a leader in faith to my wife, and this is why the SSPX exists ...." (1) alongside this in the first post: ".... The strongest argument for the validity of the Society as a legitimate arm of the Church lies in the provisions given in Canon Law that allow for irregular actions during situations of crisis ... if the Church really has been in crisis for some time now ... then perhaps ... the SSPX ... were in fact a legitimate response ... to a true crisis of faith and church governance." (2)
In this article, combined with a point in his last one on "crisis" of the Church, Kennedy uses as defenses a number of points to validate one leaving the `regular` Church for the SSPX. One example is that "... it is clear that the Latin Mass and the surrounding community is truly the breeding ground of Saints." (1) I say to this that, at least at face value (but not perhaps personal intention on Kennedy's part,) the statement displays spiritual arrogance and pride, and "bashes" the Novus Ordo, saying the atmosphere cannot produce saints. What about examples like soon to be martyr Saint, Bishop Oscar Romero, killed during a Novus Mass after preaching the homily on March 23, 1980? What about teenager St. Chiara "Luce" Badano born in 1971 after the complete changes of the Novus Ordo, whom died of cancer on October 7, 1990 at a mere 18 years old? These are but two of the hopefully growing number of saints, that have been immersed and/or had to become part of the Novus Ordo "Church culture," and hopefully the Church will canonize more to come. While I will admit I am no stranger to the weaknesses of the average parish culture of the Novus Ordo Mass, it is NOT deficient of Christ's graces and the Holy Mass. Clearly as with these (soon to be two) Saints, ordinary parish or Novus Ordo culture CAN enable some people to become saintly under the right circumstances, or dare I say, in SPITE of such circumstances.
Another argument Kennedy uses to validate one`s decision to abandon Holy Mother Church for the SSPX, is that the Latin Mass has been the formative Mass in the Roman rite for numerous saints. If the article was a general apologia for the Latin Mass, this IS a vital argument that can be used. However, did said saints decide to act outside the authority of the Church and start their own parallel `society` with a form of the Mass they felt better or more "pure/holier", like say, version 1.0 of the Tridentine Mass when Pope Pius V promulgated it in 1570? Absolutely not! Those saints were loyal sons and daughters of the Church who did not take matters in their own hands to save what they thought is the "true tradition of the Church."
BEYOND THE POSTINGS OF KENNEDY: INSCRIBED MENTALITY OF ANTIPATHY AGAINST THE NOVUS ORDO?
While not deeply touched in these two postings, with possibly obvious reason, Kennedy fails to mention one key teaching that the SSPX continues to hold: A firm antipathy towards the Novus Ordo Mass, one that violates the teachings of the Church and puts those who adhere to the SSPX's teachings in peril of their soul.
Where is it that Catholics must at the very least acknowledge the validity and licitness of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite/Novus Ordo under normal conditions?
In most recent times, part of that is in the very document that allowed for freer usage of the EF again in modern times, Summorum Pontificum, promulgated as a motu proprio by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI (emphasis added:) "Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite .... These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite." (3) Being motu proprio, this is immediate acting, binding law, upon the entirety of the Church, both for lay faithful and priest.
Also, besides the Pope having infallibility in faith and morals, he also has full Papal Authority on other matters in the Church including the promulgation of liturgical rites, discipline in the Church and its government. This was promulgated in the Vatican I Dogmatic Constituion of the Church of Christ, Pastor Aeternus, paragraph 3 (also, emphases added here:)
"Hence we teach and declare that, by the appointment of our Lord, the Roman Church possesses a superiority of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world, so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one Supreme Pastor through the preservation of unity both of communion and of profession of the same faith with the Roman Pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and of salvation." (4)
Unfortunately, the SSPX do not swear total fealty to the Holy Father, or should I say Fathers since Vatican II, given the above with regards to one key element of our common Catholic Faith: The everyday, Novus Ordo form of the Roman Rite, the Catholic Mass of today, found in most parishes worldwide. It is in their treatment of the Novus Ordo that once again, Mr Kennedy's statement of "total obedience" to the Holy Father is disingenuous and whereby, the SSPX poses great danger to the faith life of the ordinary Catholic, and hence, the possibly of becoming self-schismatic.
While Kennedy has definitely become familiar with the SSPX website, perhaps he has stumbled upon the YouTube(TM) SSPX FAQ videos, produced likely by the USA district? The channel is "SSPX News - English" and is a series of 16 videos, 15 of them frequently asked questions about elements pertaining to the Society, including their origins, the priest's status of "jurisdiction" in the Church, etc. The host is an un-named priest of the Society, who narrates the text provided in the comments section under each video. Of the series, 3 of them involve dealing with the Novus Ordo/Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite and attendance at this form of the Mass.
The first FAQ is Episode 7 titled "What is the Novus Ordo Missae?" The priest explains how the New Mass was some concocted scheme of Anibale Bugini, but also states of the Novus Ordo the following: "... Man has become more of the focus, not so much God. The priest and faithful father for a meal to share with one another Christ's loving presence ... vernacular languages, "Mass facing the people," and equating the laity's role with that of the priest ... the Blessed Sacrament ... is reserved away from the main altar ... many abuses have been introduced, such as lay Eucharistic Ministers, Communion in the hand, and altar girls." (5)
I'll address some of these charges briefly. In each case, it was NOT the Novus Ordo Missae itself that allowed these changes, or the charge doesn't stick well. Rather it was politics or flat out abuse by certain prelates that led to the abuses mentioned.
To start with the charge of the man-focused liturgy, and that the Mass is a meal to share with one another in Christ's presence, I think that, even my Conference of Canadian Catholic Bishops, (of which bishops' conferences are generally deplored by Catholic faithful in the know,) in the publicly accessible General Instruction of the Roman Missal (G.I.R.M.) for the 2011/3rd edition of the Missal, would beg to differ. Their second paragraph in the Introduction states the following: "The sacrificial nature of the Mass, solemnly defended by the Council of Trent ... was once more stated by the Second Vatican Council ... What is taught in this way by the Council is consistently expressed in the formulas of the Mass. Moreover, the doctrine which stands out ... is aptly and exactly expounded in the Eucharistic Prayers; for as in these the Priest enacts the anamnesis ..." (6) which is explained in paragraph 78(e) as, "... by which the Church, fulfilling the command that she received from Christ the Lord through the Apostles, celebrated the memorial of Christ, recalling especially his blessed Passion, glorious Resurrection and Ascention into Heaven.``(6) While we cannot control the (willful?) ignorance pf priests for NOT reading the G.I.R.M. and/or the possible brainwashing of their formation for the generations of the late 60`s to 80`s and some of the 90`s, one can certainly conclude that the Mass is NOT intended as a `celebratory meal` for the celebrant in carrying out the sacred liturgy.
As for the other charges, these were limited or narrowed suggestions/permissions abused by the clergy at the time of the Council, and/or taken in well-meaning intention by ignorant priests from liturgical "experts" who likely themselves did not have the proper interpretation of, or even the actual documents themselves, of Vatican II. As per the abuses mentioned, they were twistings of suggestions from the Vatican II documents, but NOT the original intention for the Novus Ordo, whose true intentions are oriented particularly from Sarcosanctum Concilium. Much of this, don't forget, was in the pre-Internet era, before even laity could enact surveillance on our institutional Church and be able to decry when clerics do not follow rubrics or violate laws. For the sake of length I will not attack each claim by the unnamed priest, rather I refer you to one of Catholic Answer`s priests on retainer for answering questions from the faithful, Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J. (Yes, a Jesuit!) in this article at https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/the-mass-of-vatican-ii.html. The unnamed SSPX priest then describes the Latin Mass as the total opposite of everything about the Novus Ordo at the end of the video. The underlying message he gives is `Novus Ordo bad, Latin Mass and SSPX good.`
In the 2nd video on the Novus Ordo, titled ``Should Catholics Attend the New Mass? - Part I or II`` (7) the unnamed priest, does not necessarily lob any direct attacks on the Novus Ordo but does a good job in explaining the Sunday obligation to attend Mass. The one thing to note though, which he intentionally sets up for part II are the reasons WHY someone would be unable to attend to their Sunday Obligation. As per the text of the video these reasons are: ``• Dangerous travel conditions, an inability to travel, or even great distances.; • Poor health. ;• Preservation of a common good. • A duty of charity or another necessity, such as caring for the sick or employment for one’s livelihood.``
Keeping in mind distance and preservation of a common good, the priest then goes into the second part, titled ``Should Catholics Attend the New Mass? - Part II of II.`` Here is where the unnamed priest assaults the Novus Ordo in order to convince the ordinary faithful, to abandon the regular Church life and even NOT attend the Novus Ordo. Using the Ottavani Intervention, a warning from Cardinal Ottavani and other signatories of the errors that would be introduced in the 1970 edition of the Roman Missal (the 2nd edition, as there was a 1965 version of the Missal and the Mass intended by Vatican II documents,) and other statements including the excommunicated and un-reconciled leader of the SSPX, +Lefevbre (of which a quote is purposely abridged,) the priest convinces the viewer to abandon the Novus Ordo.
What statements does the priest use? Examples are the obscuring or "... even removing from its prayers the Catholic doctrines concerning the propitiatory nature of the Mass, the sacrificial and mediatory character of the priesthood, and the dogma of the Real Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist" (8) and "... the New Mass departs from the Catholic Faith "as a whole and in its details." (8) Already in those statements, the quote I used prior from the G.I.R.M. proves the priest wrong, as the sacrificial and mediatory character IS retained in the Mass (though whether the priest acts as such in an obvious way is not under our complete control.) As for the denial of the Real Presence of the Lord Jesus, setting aside the issue of not having the tabernacle on the altar in visible sight (with exception of specific adoration chapels near the altar) which AGAIN was due to foolish liturgical "experts," all one has to do is examine the climax of the Mass in the Eucharistic Prayers, when the Body and Blood of Christ is consecrated/undergoes transubstantiation from bread and wine into the Sacred Species in the Mass. Yes, even the so called paltry and commonly over-used Eucharistic prayer II, has it mentioned TWICE in specific detail, the Body and Blood of Christ, the second time even using the word "partaking."
Finally, after some more charges against the Ordinary Form, the un-named priest makes these horrifying statements of the Novus Ordo: ".... In itself the rite of the New Mass does not clearly express the Faith precisely on the points of doctrine denied by the Protestant heresies. In itself therefore this new rite of the Mass constitutes a danger to souls." Hence, what this illicit priest has said, is that the Church's highest form of prayer, in the MAJORITY FORM & RITE OF THE MASS OFFERED TO THE AVERAGE CATHOLIC, is detrimental to their souls, as if it were a mortal sin to go.
This, is a sickening charge to make against Holy Mother Church, the Church Christ founded that He himself said that the Gates of Hell would never destroy in Matthew 16:18. Further, Our Lord Jesus Christ, said himself in the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 7: 9-10 (Douay-Reims), "Or what man is there among you, of whom if his son shall ask bread, will he reach him a stone? 10 Or if he shall ask him a fish, will he reach him a serpent?" Why, would the Lord, then, via the Church he instituted for the salvation of souls, with the principal form of prayer and command to honour Him for all eternity in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, allow the creation of a Mass diabolical enough to damn the souls of the faithful? Even the un-named priest says himself in the video, "The Church cannot ask her members to endanger their Faith." (8)
Regardless, the priest continues to tell the faithful, that if you can't get to a traditional Mass (implying, as being the source of this enlightenment in the FAQ videos, that it should be a Latin Mass offered by the SSPX,) or the priest in his preaching and opinions is a detriment to the faith, you should NOT attend, and instead stay at home and " ... sanctify Sunday by dedicating a time for prayer, alone or in the family: one could read the Mass of the day, pray the rosary, and make a spiritual communion." (8) And should one be forced into a situation to attend a Novus Ordo for a sacrament (e.g. wedding, Confirmation, funeral,) you are to attend passively.
Oddly enough, even those who argue for the Traditional Latin Mass, are actually fighting this charge of passivity in the TLM, saying you actively participate via your "internal disposition" of prayer, uniting those to the priest at the altar involved in the eternal, bloodless re-presenation of the Lord's Sacrifice. While the priest in an odd, anti-culture type way is applying this to the Novus Ordo, he is actually encouraging passive participation in the Mass, which defeats the efforts of Latin Mass apologists, and only supports the stereotype of the passive laity at Mass, a misunderstanding that made its way into the Vatican II Council to encourage "active participation" (albeit the Popes has a different idea of this vs. the Cardinals/bishops who allowed practical mis-applications of this concept.)
4. Pope Blessed Pius IX. "First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, Pastor Aeternus" Catholic Planet, Translated by Manning, Cardinal Henry E.M., 18 Jul 1870, http://www.catholicplanet.org/councils/20-Pastor-Aeternus.html. Accessed 27 June 2018.
5. Name unknown. "What is the "Novus Ordo Missae"? - Episode 07 - SSPX FAQ Videos." Society of St. Pius X, 1 Apr 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Pp1JAk47t0. Accessed 27 June 2018.
6. Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. ``The General Instruction of the Roman Missal.`` Archdiocese of London, 2011, https://dol.ca/documents/2016/11/girm.pdf. Accessed 26 June 2018.
7. Name unknown. 22 Jul 2015. "Should Catholics Attend the New Mass? - Part I or II - Episode 14 - SSPX FAQ Series" Society of St. Pius X,. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiuXKo0CwoM. Accessed 27 June 2018.
8. Name unknown. 1 Aug 2015. "Should Catholics Attend the New Mass? - Part I or II - Episode 14 - SSPX FAQ Series" Society of St. Pius X, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hZrRGMs6CY. Accessed 27 June 2018.
No comments:
Post a Comment