Comments on: Ultratrad Schismatics to Speak With Pope

By: gbm3

gbm3 — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

From 8-3-05, last Sunday Gospel:

"And so I say to you, you are Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my church,
and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven;
and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Christians must remember that whatever they think the Church has done wrong, they must remember what Christ said about His Church built on Peter.

Let each pastor do what the parishioners want in liturgical matters.

I actually prefer what was/is done at some Pitt masses: sung traditional responses and the rest in the vernacular.

---

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"Let each pastor do what the parishioners want in liturgical matters."

Even clown masses?!

By: Jerry

Jerry — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Heh. I wonder at the term "demands" which the reporter used–was that how the SSPX people presented it? If they did, that's a lovely way to get reunited, demanding something of the Pope when they're a small schism.

By: gbm3

gbm3 — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"Even clown masses?!" -FD

No.

How about this:

If a mass was approved at one time, it is approved where it is desired to be instituted. For example, "the ORIGINAL Roman Catholic Mass of A.D. 40-200" can be used since it was approved back then, but liturgical dance cannot be used anywhere (no form is approved, I believe).

Also, an easy way to get around allowing an old mass to be used it to still provide post-concicular versions in a parish.

I feel like the other side is shown now: the modern mass is only available at my church. Why can't they have just one mass with some Latin or something?

---

By: Talmida

Talmida — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

An original mass from 40 AD?

Wouldn't that be prior to the institutional priestood, since the Temple was still standing? Jesus' disciples would probably make their sacrifices at the Temple for the festivals, go to the meeting place to learn and discuss Scripture on the Sabbath, and then break bread with other Jewish followers of Jesus on the first day of the week. This meal would certainly have taken place in a private home, and might well have been presided over by a woman — the normal person in charge of meals.

Hmm…I might enjoy a traditionalist group like that.

By: gbm3

gbm3 — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"Wouldn't that be prior to the institutional priestood, since the Temple was still standing?"

No. The anniversary of the priesthood founded by Jesus in the Apostles started on Holy Thursday before the Crucifixion. ( http://www.catholic.org/clife/lent/thurs.php )

—

By: Tom Smith

Tom Smith — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Actually, I dunno *who* came up with the word "demand," but it seems to me that nobody's demanding anything. Msgr. Fellay described the meeting as "serene;" hardly indicative of anyone "demanding" anything. If anyone's demanding anything anyway, it's sure not the schismatics. After all, they aren't the ones who excommunicated anybody. They aren't hurting one bit because of their schism. http://www.sspx.org/whatsnew.htm

Anyway, it seems to me that the Society is on the verge of a split itself. It's been brewing for a number of years, because about half of the European SSPX tends toward sedevacantism and denies the validity of the Novus Ordo sacraments. The other half are those who are friendly to Masses of antiquity celebrated under diocesan indult. +Fellay and +de Mallerais are probably the most conciliatory of the four bishops, with +de Gallareta somewhere between those two and +Williamson, who is, in my opinion, a closet sedevacantist. It was +Williamson who angrily broke the news that +Fellay would be meeting with His Holiness; +Fellay had wanted to keep it on the DL, and +Williamson wanted to let the rest of the Society know that +Fellay was compromising. Anyway, I think the deal is that +Fellay genuinely wants to ensure the teaching of orthodoxy, and is playing hardball to get it. (And, I might add, they've done a ton to promote that within the Church.) My take is that he's not the type of guy who'd die outside the Church for this cause, because he knows they're in schism and knows that their mission is ultimately to ensure orthodoxy and tradition, not perpetuate the schism. People like +Williamson and the webmaster of the US Society site, however, won't be coming back any time soon. +Fellay and his half will return some time, and +Williamson and his half will remain in schism.