Traditional Mass

last SG · 2006-12-23T21:01:53+00:00

Communion on the tongue has always been the tradition of the Church. But Communion on the hand is legal. Of course, I'm still going with tongue.

Icemoon SG

Why you only quote Luther? The rest of the 36000 denominations leh? Laughing

Oh gosh .. Protestant is worse than schismatic church. Shocked

The way you say it .. partaking in SSPX Mass seems to be perfectly legitimate. Confused

Pope Nicholas SG

1) Well without Luther doctrine of Sola Scriptura, there wont be a 36 000 protestant sect. Give credit to him la...Father of Protestantism eh

2) To quote:

According to the 1983 code of canon law (promulgated by John Paul II), illicitly consecrating a bishop is not a schismatic act. That is most likely why the Holy See gave Lefebvre a canonical warning only about excommunication, not schism, before he consecrated the bishops. Lefebvres action seems to be one of disobedience, but not schism. Disobedience of a papal command does not give rise to schism; the person must actually deny the popes authority to be guilty of the crime of schism. I understand that Lefebvre unlike a true schismatic - never denied Pope John Paul IIs authority as the Vicar of Christ. In fact, he believed his actions were actually serving the pope and the Church at large. Nevertheless, because the pope is the supreme legislator, we are obligated to conclude that Lefebvres consecration of the bishops was a schismatic act because the pope said so. Only another pope could overrule him.

The issue is not as clear with respect to the priests of the SSPX and the faithful who attend their Masses. Certainly, the SSPX priests are not automatically schismatic or excommunicated simply because of the actions of Lefebvre. Lefebrve's actions are not imputed to the other SSPX priests either canonically or theologically

The problem with John Paul II's motu proprio is that it never provided a definition of "formal adherence" to the schism. Presumably, if a person formally supports Lefebvre's disobedience and attends the SSPX chapel as a manifestation of that support (or a priest joins the SSPX to manifest such support), that person would presumably be "formally adhering" to Lefebrvre's schism. However, if a person merely attends Mass at an SSPX chapel out of love for the Traditional Latin Mass, including the piety it fosters and the theological clarity it provides, then such a person would not be in schism.

The Ecclesia Dei commission that John Paul II instituted has said the same. The commission declared that Catholics can fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending Masses offered by SSPX priests. If the priests of the SSPX were in schism, the Ecclesia Dei commission would presumably not allow Catholics to frequent their Masses, since they would be allowing Catholics to worship outside the Church. This indicates that SSPX priests are not in fact in schism (for example, Catholics could not fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending liturgies offered by the schismatic priests of the Eastern Orthodox churches). The same commission has said that, so long as Catholics attend SSPX chapels out of their devotion to the Traditional Latin Mass (and not because they want to separate themselves from the Roman Pontiff), such conduct is not sinful.

There is nothing wrong wif attending Tridentine Mass by SSPX priest. I am not SSPX btw.

Icemoon SG

Ho seh la .. next outing - SSPX Mass. Mr. Green

Actually if there is nothing wrong, why the taboo? Hmm ..

Looks like SSPX mass is less harmful than Protestant service.

Pope Nicholas SG

1) Haha i think its alrite. Everyone shoudl experience the Tridentine mass. I have onli seen a 60min clip in youtube and enjoyed it

2) Obviously. A SSPX priest is valid, the tridentine mass is valid. The protestant service even if it is conducted by the Archbishop of Cantebury is not valid haha. A SSPX member is still catholic.

Icemoon SG

I enjoyed the Tridentine Mass even though it was after a day at work. Even though I don't understand Latin. Hmm ..

Actually there is something I don't understand. What was the real reason why they changed the Tridentine Mass to the current one? If it is because of language, they could have just changed the language right?

Furthermore the Tridentine Mass is what it should have been - priest facing the same direction as the congregation, holy communion received kneeling and on the lips etc.

Pope Nicholas SG

As a catholic, im dazzled as well

Personally i feel this are the reason:

1) To bridge protestantism and catholicsm (protestant theoligcans were invited)

2) To modernise

3) To increase laity participation and vernacular language

4) Conspiracy - Freemasons infiltration

Ps: I recieve communion with my tongue as well. It is wrong to recieve it via hands. Kneeling haha...i dont...maybe i should freak everyone out by doing that.

Icemoon SG

1. Don't understand. They were invited to what?

2. I don't see any modernisation. The altar is still the altar. No rock music yet.

3. True for laity participation. Like I've said, they could just change the language but preserving the format of the old rite.

4. Wah .. this is new!

I dunno got people receive it via hands or not. You got see b4?

The receiving of communion is another thing. Why can't people just follow the old format and receive it by kneeling?? Rolling Eyes

SingaporeMacross SG

1. Protestants were invited to the Second Vatican Council as observers. This is nothing new. We did this at the Council of Trent also.

2. Tsk, wait till you attend a charismatic Mass.

3. To be debated at a later time.

4. There is no proof of this.

And yes, everybody recieves by hand now, regretably.

Pope Nicholas SG

1) As i said, to bridge the gap in the face of some falsehood called eucinemism

2) The Tabernacle is no longer in the centre. The consecration words are different like the pro multis. In USA, there is rock music and dancing priest and even pizza communion once haha. The entire format is different and now there is communion minister despite the fact only consecrated ahnds can touch the flesh of Christ. Removal of st Micahel prayer. Alot of modern teachings.

3) I dont think its possible. The old rite has little participation. People just sing a few hymns and the rest of the time are supposed to adore the Lord presence.

4) Haha this si quite common. The one of was in charge of the Novus Ordo Missae was suspected of being freemason. There is a wiki article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugnini

Pope Nicholas SG

1) Council of Trent was to deal with them. They were there to present thier case. IN the Vatican 2, they were there to help out in the formation of the new mass.

2) Agreed...charismatic mass is a total disobidence of canon laws on Sacred Music

3) -

4) There isnt

Forget abt the kneeling. People should start recieving it from the tongues.

Icemoon SG

Pope Nicholas is what parish one? How come macross say everyone receives it by hand now and Pope Nicholas like rebel liddat receive it on tongue? Laughing

shouldn't it be when you are in Rome, do what the Romans do? Mr Pope, don't be rebel leh.

Icemoon SG

don't understand. how come the bishop approve it then? Rolling Eyes

and to think conducting a Tridentine Mass in Singapore by a legit Priest requires permission from the bishop!!

I think charismatic mass should be the one requiring permission .. duh.

catinthehat SG

2) Obviously. A SSPX priest is valid, the tridentine mass is valid. The protestant service even if it is conducted by the Archbishop of Cantebury is not valid haha. A SSPX member is still catholic.

An example. Take the case of a man who has left the priesthood. He goes ahead and says Mass. The Mass is valid too, because the Church teaches that once Holy Orders is conferred on someone, it cannot be removed. But, it is illegal (to use the Church's term, illicit), because you're not supposed to exercise the sacraments once you have left the priesthood and returned to the clerical state.

So, to say the SSPX priest is "valid" is telling half the story. It is correct that SSPX priests are validly ordained. But they are suspended from saying Mass.

However, we Catholics have to obey Church law - Jesus Christ said so himself. He told the Apostles that, "he who hears you hears Me". SSPX priests, according to church law, are suspended from saying Mass, because they have been (1) illicitly ordained (2) they are not part of a proper religious order or diocese of the church. The SSPX has never obtained status as a proper religious order in the Church.

One of the sins that the church teaches is to assist in the sins of others, eg, if you see someone stealing and you help him do so - you are guilty of assisting in the sin. In the same way, since we know the SSPX priests are suspended, Catholics in good standing have no business assisting in the SSPX priests' disobedience. For example, we must not receive Holy Communion at an SSPX Mass.

There are many more examples of the intransigence of the SSPX. It would take a few days to describe them all. The SSPX uses "loopholes" in Canon Law to explain and justify their actions. But no matter how hard they try, they cannot explain away the fact that they are in a spirit of disobedience. They try to justify it by saying, "the supreme law is the salvation of souls", or "the Church is in a state of crisis/emergency".

However, to save your soul means to be in union with God. To be in union with God means to be in union with His Visible Church, to lead a life of virtue, love and charity, and not engage in polemics with the rest of your fellow Christian brethren. There has never been a time when the Church did not experience problems. A cursory reading of Church history will confirm this. The example of the saints is that they *did not* abandon the Church, and were prime examples of obedience to the lawful successors of the Apostles, as they worked towards reform of the Church.

Always pray for your priests and those who are serving you in Church, and hope in God and the Holy Spirit that He will lead us out of these difficult times the Church is facing. As lay Catholics, we are also called to support our priests, diocesan and religious, in their difficult ministry in whatever way we can. I have personally seen how hard many priests work for the benefit for those under their care.

Do not let the SSPX mislead you with their false teachings, no matter how "Catholic" they may seem. It is not Catholic to disobey the Pope in matters where he lawfully exercises his authority.

Pope Nicholas SG

Im from Holy Trinity and virtually everyone recieves it via hand....a sad outcome.

Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand." Not abortion or war, but communion in the hand. - Mother Theresa

According to Memoriale Domini (promulgated under the pontificate of Paul VI in 1969), the only time Communion in the hand is permissible is when the practice (which the pope calls a contrary usage) has already been established (usually through disobedience), and only then where the appropriate episcopal conference approves the usage by a secret 2/3 vote, which must then be reviewed and approved by the Holy See. Communion on the tongue (sub lingua) is still the universal law of the Church.

John Paul II affirmed the foregoing. In Dominicae Cenae, the pope said: "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained (No. 11). In Inaestimabile Donum, the pope said: It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another (No. 9). In 2004, John Paul IIs Congregation for Divine Worship issued Redemptionis Sacramentum which addressed certain matters concerning the celebration of the Eucharist. The document reiterated the warnings of Memoriale Domini by stating: If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.

I believe that the universal law of Communion sub lingua should be enforced more vigoroously, and Communion in the hand abolished, for the love of Christ and His Church.

His Holiness, Myself

Icemoon SG

Oh .. the parish with 13,000 parishers. Laughing

You don't feel over crowded meh?

Pope Nicholas SG

As wise and certain u might be, the Holy See disagrees with you. I held ur view till i read what the Holy See said.

Tecnically the SSPX is not in schism and the Church agrees with that. To be in schism, one must renounce ties with the Roman Pontiff. However the SSPX recognises him as the Vicar of Christ but reject the novelties of Vatican 2. Their founder Levbre was excommunicated for ordainig 4 bishops without vatican approval which was a Schismatic act. The SSPX as a whole is not in schism.

The Ecclesia Dei commission that John Paul II instituted has said the same. The commission declared that Catholics can fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending Masses offered by SSPX priests. If the priests of the SSPX were in schism, the Ecclesia Dei commission would presumably not allow Catholics to frequent their Masses, since they would be allowing Catholics to worship outside the Church. This indicates that SSPX priests are not in fact in schism (for example, Catholics could not fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending liturgies offered by the schismatic priests of the Eastern Orthodox churches). The same commission has said that, so long as Catholics attend SSPX chapels out of their devotion to the Traditional Latin Mass (and not because they want to separate themselves from the Roman Pontiff), such conduct is not sinful.

Pope Nicholas SG

Not usually as there is i think 5 Masses on Sunday. Chrsitmas mass is scary though....people faint haha.

Icemoon SG

and what shall the readers say?

"Excuse me .. was that ex-cathedra?"

Mr. Green

Pope Nicholas SG

Ice-moon, i think u are confused abt church infallibility and papal infallibility.

I daresay virtually nearly all of our doctrines came from the Sacred Magisteruim and Eucinemal Councils. SSPX isnt abt doctrines but rather canon laws....

For modern-day Church documents, there is no need for speculation as to which are ex cathedra, because the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith can be consulted directly on this question. For example, after Pope John Paul II's apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (On Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone) was released in 1994, a few commentators speculated that this might be an exercise of papal infallibility (for an example, see [3]). In response to this confusion, the Church's magisterium has unambiguously stated, on at least three separate occasions [4] [5] [6], that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not an ex cathedra teaching, although the content of this letter has been taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium

Icemoon SG

don't understand what that mean.

can you explain in your own words? Rolling Eyes

« Previous Page Next Page »