On Sunday, April 29, Archbishop Alexander Sample offered a Pontifical High Mass in thanksgiving for Summorum Pontificum at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C.
The Mass was televised by ETWN, along with color commentary provided by Msgr. Charles Pope and Msgr. Andrew Wadsworth – yes, very much in the manner of a sporting event or other spectacle that might require expert analysis for the benefit of viewers.
While seeing the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass “covered” in this manner cannot but grate against those with a Catholic sense, EWTN was simply acknowledging what His Humbleness would call the “concrete realities” of the present day. After all, the Mass of Ages is by no means an ordinary part of Catholic life as we know it.
This, of course, calls to mind the very Apostolic Letter being commemorated that day, a text wherein Benedict XVI introduced the utterly preposterous notion that the one Roman Rite has two forms, each of which express “the same lex orandi of the Church” – one “ordinary” (the Novus Ordo Missae that was invented by men sitting around a conference table with the input of heretics) and the other “extraordinary” (the venerable Traditional Latin Mass that has existed for some 1500 years).
About the best that can be said of this idea (which was, in part, a self-fulfilling prophecy) is that Benedict’s words do contain at least a thread of truth inasmuch as the Traditional Roman Rite, more than a decade after Summorum Pontiticum, is indeed still treated as something less-than (in this case, ordinary); very often as if it were but an unwanted stepchild that must be tolerated.
Be that as it may, the neo-conservative desire to imagine that the current state of ecclesial affairs is far more glorious than it truly is really is irrepressible.
For instance, Jeff Ostrowski, who blogs at CC Watershed, (and whom I wrote about HERE) suggested in light of the aforementioned Solemn Pontifical Mass that insofar as their treatment by influential churchmen is concerned, the Traditional Roman Rite presently enjoys equal status with the Novus Ordo.
This, he wrote, “is contrary to what the experts told us.” For instance:
On 28 January 2007, just a few months before Summorum Pontificum was issued, Fr. Reginald Foster (who worked for four popes) declared categorically that Pope Benedict XVI would not follow through: “He is not going to do it. He had trouble with Regensberg, and then trouble in Warsaw, and if he does this, all hell will break loose.”
Another of the experts that Mr. Ostrowski had in mind was Fr. Brian W. Harrison, whom he quoted as having written in 1995:
What all traditionalists really want, of course, is complete equality of status for the old rite of Mass, alongside the new rite. But this, I submit, is simply a pipe dream. It just is not going to happen. Already the head of the Vatican’s Ecclesia Dei Commission, Cardinal Innocenti, has made it clear that in his view the present arrangements permitting the old Mass should be seen as temporary and that the final end in view is the “integration” of traditionalist Catholics into the mainstream worship of the Latin rite—that is, full acceptance of the Mass of Paul VI. Not one of the Cardinals with any chance of being elected as the next pope has given any reason to think that he would grant full equality to the preconciliar rite of Mass, and, indeed, any such decision would probably be unenforceable: it would provoke uproar among most of the world’s bishops… [Emphasis added by Mr. Ostrowski]
Clearly, Fr. Foster was wrong, but what about Fr. Harrison?
After having his attention called to the CC Watershed post, Fr. Harrison kindly offered the following response for akaCatholic readers:
I’m naturally very glad this Traditional Latin Mass (Solemn Pontifical) was celebrated by Archbishop Alexander Sample in the National Basilica of the Immaculate Conception, with several high ranking liturgical establishment figures present on the sanctuary. But of course, while the cited scornful prediction of Fr. Reggie Foster (my Latin tutor for a while when I first went to Rome in 1982) has indeed been falsified by Summorum Pontificum and events like Abp. Sample’s recent Mass in Washington, these 21st-century developments are in no way “contrary” to my 1995 prediction cited in this report, as the author claims they are.
On the contrary, the present overall situation in the Church shows that my prediction (namely, that full equality between the old and the new rites ‘just ain’t gonna happen’) continues to be verified by the facts.
The very fact that the TLM was officially named the “extraordinary form” by Benedict XVI, and is still hedged about by many restrictions – quite a few de jure in SP and additional ones imposed de facto by many or most diocesan bishops and religious superiors – shows that the contemporary Church is nowhere near granting full equality to both the pre- and post-Vatican II rites of Mass. And the present Pontiff has of course been emphasizing and reinforcing their decidedly unequal status. Only the Novus Ordo (in whatever language) is the “ordinary form” or ‘default’ Mass of the Roman Rite, and needs no permissions, or the fulfillment of any special conditions, in order to be celebrated by any Latin-rite priest.
Going by the ‘logic’ of this blogger, one would have to say that the Church now officially places Extraordinary Ministers of Communion (lay people) on a level of “full equality” with bishops, priests and deacons (the Ordinary Ministers), when it comes to distributing Holy Communion. Or that priests (extraordinary ministers of Confirmation) and bishops (ordinary ministers thereof) enjoy “full equality” as regards administering that Sacrament. To say or imply that “Ordinary = Extraordinary” is in fact a rather obvious self-contradiction.
As a defender of both Vatican II and the new Mass, Fr. Harrison isn’t exactly of one mind with akaCatholic “traditionalists.” I do think it’s fair to say, however, that he is being drawn ever closer to tradition.
Shortly after Amoris Laetitia was published, for example, Fr. Harrison was outspoken about his misgivings, but insisted that “considerable time, study and prayerful reflection” was needed to evaluate the text properly. He was quick to conclude, however:
“He [Francis] is not repudiating in principle the objective truth of any revealed dogma or moral norm.”
A year-and-a-half later in October 2017, though he declined to sign the Filial Correction that plainly charges Francis with propagating numerous heresies, he did offer a vigorous defense of those who chose to sign it.
Last December, following word that Francis had ordered publication in the AAS of the guidelines for the implementation of Amoris Laetitia established by the bishops of Buenos Aires, along with his letter commenting on the same (“there are no other interpretations”), Fr. Harrison wrote:
“I find myself unable in conscience to just flick a switch in my mind and give my religious assent to his [Francis’] novel doctrine.”
Beyond what appears to be a progression in the direction of tradition, Fr. Harrison is a model of how sincere, passionate Catholics should treat one another in spite of serious disagreement.
He and I met in 2012 at a conference in Detroit (during my “conservative” adolescence) where we were both speakers (as was then Bishop Alexander Sample). We’ve since exchanged a few emails discussing certain issues about which we don’t see eye to eye.
Today, even though he believes that I’ve become too “aggressively” traditionalist, Fr. Harrison continues to treat me far better than any number of persons who call themselves traditional Catholics, and for this I am genuinely grateful.
So, in conclusion, please refrain from any urge to use the comment section to criticize Fr. Harrison and instead take a moment to pray for him – that his journey toward tradition (fueled no doubt by the Bergoglian hostage crisis) will proceed swiftly.
Over at The Remnant, the combox was gushing over the Pontifical questionable mass in DC. I tried to point out to them that as soon as the parking lot cleared, the Shrine would next host a heretical NO service and most likely the next day, the good archbishop would himself be performing the heretical NO service. Not surprisingly, my comment was detected as spam by the anti sedevacantist algorithms of their moderator.
It’s also very similar to the SSPX’s optimism: http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/diocese-buffalo-denies-catholicity-society-st-pius-x?utm_source=SSPX+Mailing+List&utm_campaign=dfdfe2c581-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_05_03&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_7e99fe6b53-dfdfe2c581-100029145&mc_cid=dfdfe2c581&mc_eid=54
May God give him the Grace to see, simply see and be inebriated in its magnificence!
They therefore called the man again that had been blind, and said to him: Give glory to God. We know that this man is a sinner.  He said therefore to them: If he be a sinner, I know not: one thing I know, that whereas I was blind, now I see.
Im surprised you are still allowed to post at all over there.
“This, of course, calls to mind the very Apostolic Letter being commemorated that day, a text wherein Benedict XVI introduced the utterly preposterous notion that the one Roman Rite has two forms…”
Careful lest our friend St. Cyprian accuses you rejecting Vatican I’s teaching that “The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, NOR MAY ANYONE LAWFULLY PASS JUDGMENT THEREUPON,” and at the same time contradicting the teaching that “in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished.”
Mr. Verrecchio 5-3-18: “Beyond what appears to be a progression in the direction of tradition, Fr. Harrison is a model of how sincere, passionate Catholics should treat one another in spite of serious disagreement.”
Mr. Verrecchio 4-7-18: “Bottom line, the Remnant isn’t just useless in a neutral sense; it is part of the problem and, frankly, downright dangerous. Yes, I know that I may be inviting the weak among us to whine about “circular firing squads” and “in-fighting,” but if that’s the way you feel – leave these pages until you grow strong enough to digest solid food. This isn’t the blog for you.”
There has been a concerted effort to do away with everything traditional since Vatican Two. Make no mistake about this. The mere fact that it is said for older “Catholics who are attached to it”, should flash the light on in the brains of the laity.
Just look how systematically cloistered convents have been modernized.Now with certain modernists NO priests saying the indult , you know it is being phased out because one day the old folk will not be attending and just like church properties who have dropping parishioners and are sold off , the indult priests will also drop off too .
Herein lies the problem with that preposterous, blasphemous notion that heretics can be Popes.
Archbishop Lefebvre wrote in “Against the Heresies” that to understand the the plight of the Catholic Church in the modern era one must study Freemasonry in the light of the papal documents (which began to sound the alarm in the 1730’s).
Is it any wonder that we have seen both the TLM and the message of Fatima be hermeneuticized into oblivion by the champions of universal brotherhood?
My guess is that Fr. H. had, like most Catholics, an antiseptic reading of history (No conspiracy = no original sin).
When Benedict 16 lifted the excommunications of the SSPX Bishops, Fellay’s response should have been: “That’s a very nice gesture, but the SSPX Bishops were never formally or canonically excommunicated. So your gesture is meaningless.”
When Benedict 16 announced that the TLM was free to be celebrated by any validly ordained priest, Fellay should have said: “That’s a very nice gesture, but the Traditional Latin Mass was never forbidden. Therefore you gesture is meaningless.”
Instead, Fellay was gushing with gratitude. That was a huge mistake. That’s how I see it.
Here’s a shocker. The TLM is just not popular.
Louie talks like the TLM is in a choke hold by the Vatican.
Except, Mr. Louie, the Vatican has no ability to stop sedevacantist chapels, SSPX chapels, SSPX-Resistance chapels, and independent chapels from offering the TLM.
And here in the Phoenix area, one of the largest cities in the US, with all of the above options available MAYBE *at most* you might have 1,500 people show up to attend a TLM on any given Sunday.
Sorry Louie, you can blame the Pope all you want, but the fact is; you’re less relevant than the Episcopalians.
Lifting the excommunications and “freeing” the Traditional Mass were two conditions Bp. Fellay asked for, and required, as a condition of entering into talks with the Pope for regularization. They were both granted in response to his request. So, when viewed in light of the historical context, your suggested responses would have been quite foolish.
The carrot just got bigger!
The following sermons is a *must listen* for Traditional Catholics (it is terrific!). After listening, re-read the above comments.
@Ganganelli: But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth? Luke 18:8
Here’s another shocker……..this is precisely because not only was the TLM tucked away after Vatican Two but so were good catechetical programs and texts that stressed reverence and devotion to Our Lord in the Holy Sacrifice on the altar.
People once relished time with family enjoying a delicious home cooked meal .
Now they zip into the fast foodie drive thru window.
The pervasive culture came along with making everything easy for more time to play video games and watch tv. Rap replaced real music.
There seems to be little interest in the sacred spirituality because that is the church of your parents …Hmmm ,didn’t someone in the Vatican say that recently?
“This, of course, calls to mind the very Apostolic Letter being commemorated that day, a text wherein Benedict XVI introduced the utterly preposterous notion that the one Roman Rite has two forms, each of which express “the same lex orandi of the Church” – one “ordinary” (the Novus Ordo Missae that was invented by men sitting around a conference table with the input of heretics) and the other “extraordinary” (the venerable Traditional Latin Mass that has existed for some 1500 years).”
Summorum Pontificum’s sole purpose was to keep the Catholics at bay.
sweep-It is my firm belief that when the church lost its moral compass in the 1960’s, everything went down hill. Why did Our Lady stress the year 1960 to reveal the secrets of Fatima? Why did the church ignore Her requests? Modernism was already firmly rooted. You are 100% right. It isn’t just about the Mass. It’s about dignity, decency, and respect. It is about respecting our own bodies as the Temples of the Holy Ghost. Everything is backwards. Years ago, hardworking blue collar workers put on a suit to collect their paychecks because it represented the dignity of their jobs which fed and clothe their families. Louie, I don’t think this is “off topic” because a N.O. bishop celebrating the TLM every now and then cannot correct what the church did in the 1960’s. This same bishop is saying the N.O. “mass” today and tomorrow. So don’t get too excited.
2Vermont–You got that right!
Catholics have been told by Bishops that they will be excommunicated if they go to these chapels in order to keep people away.
The last message was in response to Ganganelli.
Also, regarding the location of TLMs, if not tucked away, they are usually strategically located close to traditional chapels in order to draw people away
I should rename myself as “Confused” because the more I learn the more confused I become. I don’t know enough about what the SSPX actually practiced became “laxed” in its position so I am asking for clarification on the following quote from the article linked by Lenny B and whether or not it is a true statement. Thank you to anyone who may shed some light on this for me.
“(As a side note, for those who are scandalized at recent instances when a diocesan priest or religious received the vows of SSPX faithful, they are apparently ignorant of the fact that this has been a practice of the SSPX since the beginning. The recent legislation only formalizes what has been done on an ad hoc basis in the past. Unlike some have claimed, there is nothing new here.)”
I meant before it became “laxed” in it’s position. Sorry.
John314, That’s exactly right. The FSSP is typically located in Compton and being born and raised in NO, I was an obedient Catholic myself. I wouldn’t have touched SSPX with a ten ft poll until seeing that the Pope was literally anti-Christ…false prophet…I don’t know what but not the Vicar of Christ on earth. Only then, in a flailing panic would I have even considered attending a Mass that was illicit and I think that is fairly typical of the pew sitter at NO. Obedience is pretty darned important, I’m pretty sure many Saints have spoken to this. Just read something by Saint Alphonsus Liguori about obedience to one’s confessor and he was pretty black and white on the topic. He said that if a confessor instructs the penitent to do something wrong, that wrong lies ENTIRELY on the confessor and not AT ALL on the penitent and that the penitent should obey without question. I’m not 100% positive that a Catholic shouldn’t be attending a literal clown Mass, just because the Church so values obedience, I certainly don’t condemn them. I have no answer. Myself, I know Bergoglio is anti-Christian and a heretic so I avoid him, that’s all I can think of at this point.
For me the changes in the Mass and the dumbing down of the Faith for Catholics, both clergy and laity, have been night and
day. All starkly evident in homilies , the confessional and sacramental prep.
The only thing I noticed that has been stressed more in the past fifty years , is donation requests.
Last time I attended a NO Mass, Bishop DiMerzio was talking from wide screen televisions set up in the sanctuary, on the altar and on the right and left facing the pew people. Topic?
The need for more donations.
The last (and I mean LAST!!!) time I attended a N.O. mess, the pastor sang his homily while playing the guitar–this was on Easter Sunday no less. Of course, he got a standing ovation from the congregation–as I walked out!
2V, I think you aptly named it the: “Trad Ghetto”? Exactly, isolate, contain and keep the money coming. In Fairfield County, CT, one the wealthiest counties in America, the SSPX in Ridgefield competes for the “smells and bells” dollars against St. Mary’s in Norwalk, with it’s married Anglican Pastor (courtesy of the Deuce),who offers High Mass EVERY Sunday in primetime at 9:30. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/opinion/sunday/my-father-the-priest.html
Yeah Sweep, it’s all a problem. Irreverence, homosexuality, homosexual GROOMING, not believing the Catholic faith….Pastor at local NO told me that we don’t need to go to Confession anymore bc we say the Confiteor during the Mass, shaking hands w/strangers, holding hands (so gay), raising hands up, rock music, altar girls, melodramatic readers, scantily clad women handing out Communion and everyone sipping from the same chalice, it’s all bad, it’s all different. I’ve always recognized every innovation even though I was born after VII and every single one was a betrayal. Every Sunday is like a bad adventure. I don’t know. We’re saying the rosary.
I can’t take credit for that…that was TomA. But I agree wholeheartedly with him.
That’s the thing – most Traditonalists refuse to acknowledge this. The Latin Mass is growing, but nowhere near as popular as the Novus Ordo. And a blanket re-imposition of the Latin Mass (nearly all would be Low Masses) would drive attendance to near zero. That’s reality. I think a lot of people here live in their own worlds (in many of which there are apostate popes, no sacraments, Planet X, etc.)
You are entirely mistaken. A study conducted by James Lothian from Fordham University showed that in 1965, 65% of Catholics attended mass; and in 2000 it had dropped to 25%. I have quite a few Catholic friends and they’re mostly Catholic by marriage, maybe because I live in the South. I only recently read the Roman Catechism and those women I know wouldn’t recognize that Religion and they wouldn’t have converted to it because they were Protestants. Half the Catholics left the Church and the people left are either obedient or they’re Protestants.
Here Here Melanie ! A youngin with a brain and of course 2 Cents who is almost on my page.
Now Blunder please head over to Rad Trad and read about the Dutch Banker who blew the whistle on the satanic abuse by he elite of children. Still in the dark?
I spoke to a man I consider one brave Catholic.Steven Brady of the now defunct RCF years ago. Maybe Louie wasn’t around as a Trad Catholic then but I want you all to know that not only myself but Fr Kunz ,Malachi Martin , John Vennari ,Randy Engel , Cardinal Gagnon and a good Catholic lawyer who worked with Steve Brady ALL know for certain that a woman, peudo named “Agnes”, testified to the truth of the satanic enthronement ceremony done by high level ecclesiastics in the Church. Martin did not lie about that and plenty of like victims have come forward in Holland and also Belgium and even here in the USA.
If you thing satanic masonry with members of the clergy is all a hoax , I pity you Blunder. Also , Brady and his RCF hacked into a clerical sodomite hook up site and a priest in my own Diocese was exposed which gave four decent priests the impetus to contact me with more information on others in my own Diocese. Bishop Calcutt had to resign in disgrace.
Do some research Blind Blunder
Look up Davidovich and Gera aka (Papa Bear) the pics say more than words could ever say.
Speaking of Steve Brady, he was also kind enough to have shed some light on one of Bergoglio’s Missionaries of Mercy. None of this is ancient history Blunderbuss, if anyone has children to protect, they should know what they’re dealing with. https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/2376-these-are-not-your-grandmother-s-missionaries-of-mercy
It’s hard to compete with at best a man-made, and at worst a diabolically inspired, state sanctioned religion though isn’t it? Who among these lukewarm, half-baked, contracepting, dissenting Vatican II drones actually wants to actually become a real Catholic, seeks to actually believe the Catholic Faith whole and entire, and cares ultimately about actually getting to heaven? The Novus Ordo crowd will find out in the next life how irrelevant their religious practice was and little esteemed by Our Lord, somewhere at about at the same level as the religion of the Episcolpanians.
If attendance were driven to zero among these faux Catholics, it would be nothing more than an indictment against them of how barren of faith there always were.
I could never figure out why the SSPX was not present in the DC area?
There is really no confusion as long as you understand that the Faith is not something to be developed to accord with when we happen to exist. Once what is being universally taught deviates from what has been Catholically taught and known, then it is outside of the Faith (obviously, as Christ’s Catholic Church CANNOT possibly teach error). This is a very simple concept. The ACTUAL Papal Seat cannot teach lies BUT the seat can be occupied by a liar. Its really quite a simple concept to grasp once you start thinking. We need to be able to differentiate between the valid Papacy and interlopers. The VALID Papacy can not err, BUT who said anything about those who occupy the seat and are INVALID, for one reason or another?
One more thing Blunderbuss, I have an anecdote & I promise it’s true. Friend’s son doesn’t want to be an altar boy. Daddy says, oh no, you will serve the Church. Son asks if he could please only serve High Mass bc he doesn’t like being the center of attention; this is agreed upon. I think this might be a time when a parent may want to dwell a little bit on the darker side of humanity and maybe it would be helpful to have ever heard of that darker side, no? I’ve heard of it and my immediate response would be: okay son, there’s a seat right here in the pew next to me. Done.
Let’s combine all of these responses into one. You will have some pretty far out conspiracy theories from RadTradThomist. Whose grasp on reality slips away a bit more each time he types. You have the invocation of Randy Engel, according to whom everyone – especially among the clergy – is gay and a pedophile. You have a denunciation and condemnation of the “Novus Ordo crowd” in the harshest possible terms. Now imagine you’re the pastor of a parish and you realize that having a Latin Mass in your parish brings with it all this baggage. Even if there were more demand, do you really think anyone in their right mind would welcome that?
Is the passage of time or your unfamiliarity with the events the problem? The (real) pope was responding to long-standing demands of the SSPX. Bishop Fellay was pleased by the actions because it denoted progress in Rome understanding these errors. I think in the context of the time, your suggestions for what should have happened are naive.
Blunder, I for one agree that the NO sect should outlaw the Latin Mass. Be done with it. To have these heretics mocking the Catholic Faith by mimicking the True Mass is an affront to God. The NO sect has their NO mass. Leave the Latin Mass to us Catholics. Say your abominable fake mass to your Man centered gods.
I agree with Gagnelli! The TLM is not compatible with V2 and the NO sect. The average NO pewsitter has absolutely no interest or desire in the TLM.
There is also an independent sede chapel in nearby Monroe, CT
Modernist clap trap
Kind of weak sauce responding to my comment.
Forget the Vatican altogether as sedevacantist and SSPX and SSPX-resistance chapels have nothing to do with the modern Vatican.
Why can’t you people do at least as well as the obviously false religion of Mormonism?
No, relevant to most of the people who comment here.
Yes, Our Lady of the Rosary Chapel, know it well!
SSPX Ridgefield, CT is a perfect example of change within the SSPX.
At one time priests ordained in the doubtful New Rite were conditionally “re”-ordained in the Old Rite. They no longer do this as a rule. Ridgefield, CT has a priest from the Archdiocese of NY in its ranks who never got ordained in the Old Rite when he came to the SSPX in 2015: Monsignor James Byrnes.
Unless one researches a priest’s ordination, it is more and more likely that the priest at any given SSPX chapel will be ordained in the Novus Ordo rite by a bishop also consecrated in the doubtful Novus Ordo rite of episcopal consecration. These men were formed in the Novus Ordo seminaries where they were immersed in the teachings of Vatican II.
The only places where you know for sure that the priests are all ordained in the Old Catholic Rite by bishops also consecrated in the Old Catholic Rite are the Resistance and sedevacantist chapels.
To clarify: When I say “Old Catholic Rite”, I mean the Old Roman Catholic Rite (the ones prior to Paul VI’s rites), not the rite of the “Old Catholics”.
Lenny B.–The SSPX considers this a “Happy Ending” when the Baptism was moved to one of their own chapels. This is an excellent example of their twisting thinking. A real Happy Ending would have been that the N.O. “church” was convinced of the legality of the marriage in question and the Baptism was allowed. Do not misunderstand. I am not promoting any Sacraments under a N.O. roof. However, I think my point is clear. Thanks, Lenny B., for posting this.
2Vermont–The only reason I could think of why the SSPX does not conditionally re-ordain is because they do not want to insult the N.O. “church”. Another example of its weakness.
my2cents….I suspect the change started when they had to accept the validity of the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration in 2005 because that was the first time a papal/Bishop of Rome claimant was consecrated in it (Benedict).
Sure , go to the Resistance chapels who have embraced the sodomites amongst them, because they were Ordained in the Old Rite. Marshal Roberts comes to mind along with several others who were close to Urrutigoity in the seminary.
Ha ha. Classic Tom A response.
I was speaking merely of valid priests with undoubtedly certain sacraments.
2Vermont, I’m a lurker here for several years but rarely comment. I’m a fan of the Tom A posts, because he’s not afraid to ask unpopular, but thought provoking questions. I am sympathetic to your tribe, but not in agreement with you on all things. That said, like many on this site, Louie included, I’ve come from the Novus Ordo and am a long way from my impoverished upbringing in the NO church. I now attend an SSPX Chapel and don’t think Bergoglio is the true Pope.
I’ve come a long way, and Louie’s one of the people who I have to thank for waking me up.
That said, I think you’re way off on this. I have spoken to SSPX leadership on this and they *never* had a *policy* of re-ordaining *every* priest who was ordained in the NO. They have always held the position that ordination, like baptism, should only take place once. If in doubt, a *conditional* re-ordination will be performed. The reason it is *conditional* is that they consider *some* NO ordinations to be valid. (I think Canon Gregory Hesse (rip) does a good job of addressing this issue in some of his videos.)
Their position has not changed. They evaluate the ordination of *every* priest who “comes in from the cold” and, if they believe it is necessary (or if the priest himself desires it, because he thinks it necessary) they will conditionally reordain. They still do this, although they don’t always advertise it.
Based on my conversations with SSPX leadership, I believe that they take this seriously and that they are much more qualified to assess the need for reordination than I am. So I trust them to decide. If they assessed that Msgr. Byrnes did not need reordination, that’s good enough for me. I certainly trust their qualifications for assessing this, and their judgement, better than some blog commenter who has never interviewed Msgr. Byrnes nor researched the particulars of his ordination.
Ganganelli said: “Here’s a shocker. The TLM is just not popular.
Louie talks like the TLM is in a choke hold by the Vatican.”
So? What’s your point?
It can’t be in a chokehold if it’s not popular? False dichotomy.
It’s not relevant, or important, or TRUE because it’s not popular? Christ asked whether there would still be any believers left when he returns; God was willing to spare Sodom for the sake of 10 just men. Since when is the truth dependent on a large number of believers?
Appox. 20 years ago, when I first became associated with the SSPX, I was told that any N.O. priest who wanted to defect the N.O. to join the SSPX, would be conditionally re-ordained after much study in the TLM, the Traditional Sacraments and the Traditional Catholic faith. I have met Monsignor Byrnes on a few occasions. His honest and sincerity impressed me. However, I never got into a discussion with him regarding his re-training or conditional ordination. My point is how many N.O. priests attended seminaries that taught the Latin and the TLM? Wouldn’t some re-training be necessary? If so, it makes sense to re-ordain. As far as I’m concerned, any N.O. priest who sincerely wants to jump the fake “catholic” ship and serve the Traditional Catholic faith is a hero. I pray your trust that the SSPX is doing the right thing regarding these new-comers is well-founded. If you don’t think Bergoglio is the true pope, I suspect you are against any regularization with Rome. Welcome aboard.
How does the SSPX have nothing to do with present day Rome? That is basically the crux of the problem when it comes to the SSPX….they DO have something to do with present day Rome. If they didnt then they’d be sede’s and at least we’d all be straight on who stood where. The SSPX are the group thats lends most to the confusion.
Just wondering, are you asking why there are not more “joiners” to the TLM movement? If you are, I suggest that it is just as Pope Benedict said, the future would mean a “smaller” church. There really can be no doubt, I don’t think any TLM attendees doubt, the true church today can only be found in the TLM. I wouldn’t expect large numbers to be interested in it, not in this culture.
Louie, I appreciated EWTN covering the TLM. I too wondered why it needed play by play, but since it was covered I didn’t feel I could complain either. When the prayers were being sung and there was talking, I had to turn the volume down. Now that I’m older I have come to realize not everything is for me or centered around me. I hope the broadcast introduced many to the TLM and they see the possibilities. There is simply no comparison between the NO Mass and the TLM. The TLM is vertical, we worship God, the NO is horizontal, we have community. One is authentic worship, the other is a Protestant service. This cannot be denied. I know, there are reverent NO Masses, I’ve attended them, but they pale in comparison to the TLM, even the Low Mass, which I actually prefer.
Very true Evangeline, the TLM is for people who genuinely realize they are going to Mass to give honor and glory to God .
A reverent NO is simply lipstick on a pig. I truly feel sorry for those stuck in NOland who desire giving God glory and proper worship. The charitable thing for to do is give them the truth about the NO.
Gang, the reason why you are rightly critical of the trad movement is because 95% of them are some sort of recognize and resist adherents. The RR position is completely non catholic and inherently a contradiction. The sede position (both sedevacante and sedeprivation) are coherent like the ecclesiology you have imbued in your formation. Our point of departure is Vatican 2. Is it Catholic or not? If yes, then we should all be in your camp, if no, then those who promulgate it are not Catholic. The vast majority of traditionalist live an internal contradiction that results in confusion. Sedes simply live with mystery as have all Catholics from the beginning.
No matter how reverent the N.O. “mass” can be made to appear, it cannot be made holy because it is intrinsically not holy. A priest gets his holiness from the True Mass when celebrated sacredly and humbly. I believe those stuck in NOland (see Tom A’s comment above) who desire to give God glory and proper worship receive graces, but are deprived of supernatural graces. Evangeline, I also prefer the Low Mass. The quietness and stillness allows me to pray more intensely without distraction. Many will disagree, I’m sure.
Thanks for the welcome.
Regarding training, I agree with you and they do get it. I’ve spoken with Msgr. Byrnes many times over the past few years and asked him lots of questions. I’ve also gotten to know a couple other NO to SSPX convert priests and asked them similar questions, because I have the same concerns as you and Vermont. All these men spent at least a year living in community with SSPX priests and receiving assessment and training before making the change official. Everything from how they say the mass to theology, understanding of Church teaching and history. Also practical things like what it’s like to live in community with other SSPX priests and what their life and responsibilities in the SSPX will be like. Neither side wants to make a mistake and find out after the fact that it won’t work out. Imagine being at that age and having to start over again. I’m a similar age wouldn’t want to do it. It takes great courage and I have great admiration for their willingness to suffer for the faith.
CR/my2cents: It may be true that it wasn’t a “policy” to re-ordain in the beginning/was done on a case by case basis. However, we also need to keep in mind that most of the Novus Ordo priests at the start of the SSPX in the 60’s and 70’s were also ordained in the New Rite by bishops that were consecrated in the Old Rite. The New Rite of Consecration of bishops is the bigger issue as the New Rite of Ordination of priests may not have been changed substantially, but the latter rite was changed substantially.
I think the practice of re-ordaining NO priests became more prevalent as more and more NO bishops were consecrated in this New Rite thereby creating a huge positive doubt as to whether the priests they “ordained” were actually priests. The SSPX held positive doubts regarding this New Rite of Consecration.
Then…..Benedict became “pope” in 2005. He was consecrated bishop in the New Rite. It is at this point when the SSPX changed their tune regarding the New Rite of Consecration. It seems that this was the turning point when the practice of re-ordaining NO priests on a much more regular basis started to wane. It makes sense though. If the man you believe is true pope and Bishop of Rome, Benedict XVI, was consecrated in the New Rite, how can you question the validity of the New Rite?
The issue with the New Rite is inherent in the form of the rite itself. It doesn’t make sense to judge which ones need to be re-ordained and which ones not. If the Novus Ordo Rites of Ordination and (especially) Consecration are doubtful/questionably Catholic, then all NO priests need to be re-ordained (unless the priest was ordained in the Old Rite by a bishop who was consecrated in the Old Rite). It’s not a matter for subjectivity. The validity of these priests’ sacraments is at stake.
You say, “The SSPX held positive doubts regarding this New Rite of Consecration. Then…..Benedict became “pope” in 2005. He was consecrated bishop in the New Rite. It is at this point when the SSPX changed their tune regarding the New Rite of Consecration. “
– Can you substantiate this?
“It’s not subjective” are you saying that all priests ordained by a bishop who was consecrated in New rite are, objectively, not validly ordained? By what authority do you proclaim this? I’m not being rude, I’m sincerely asking if you know something I don’t.
Until I have proof that I trust, I’m leaving this up to the SSPX because they have canonists and priests far more qualified to make that call than me.
I worry about this stuff, for sure, but I’m not qualified and have to trust someone else. It’s sad that us laymen are in the position to have to try and figure out these things for ourselves when in the past we could simply trust the church.
I do not have any authority, but neither does the SSPX.
If you think that the SSPX always believed the New Rite of Consecration was certainly valid, then you should ask yourself why Archbishop Lefebrve called the new rites “bastard” rites. If the SSPX always believed that the NREC was valid, then why didn’t ABL use the New Rite of Consecration to consecrate his SSPX bishops?
The question of the validity of the New Rite of Consecration was always there among traditionalists…. until a study came out (in 2005) in The Angelus by Fr Pierre-Marie that tried to make the case that the NREC was in fact valid. How is the timing of this new study not questionable? Why 2005? I have no authority, but I find it very hard to believe that this date is coincidental.
Given their position on the pope, they have every reason to change their view on the NREC. They have to…otherwise their pope is not the pope because the pope must be a certainly valid bishop.
Chris, these time call for those who seek the truth to do the hard work and investigate the matter for themselves. The SSPX, even though they are certainly learned, are no more authoritative than you or I. So while the SSPX can have their “opinion” on ordination validity, to trust them in this matter the way you would trust a true Pope is foolish. I am afraid you must investigate and make up your own mind. Yes this sounds strange to Catholic ears, but whom else can you trust these days? Certainly no one in the NO hierarchy. That leaves you and your own intellect. There are many articles written on the problem with the new ordinations and scant few written defending what the NO did to the rites. In days gone by we would submit our intellects to the teachings of a Pope on this subject. The other fact, which I am sure you are aware of, is that many of the clergy who are now sede, were once SSPX. They came to differing conclusions then the SSPX hierarchy and had to depart.
Here is the thing about the validity of the NO and the new rites of ordination. The only people who have declared them valid are modernists. Why would any faithful Catholic take the word of modernist heretics? Those on the traditional side who believe the NO sacraments are valid or invalid are certainly welcomed to their opinion, but it must be said that it is simply their opinion since none of us has any authority to declare one way or the other. That is why the prudent course for a faithful Catholic is to avoid all NO sacraments since it is impossible for us to know with certitude whether they are valid or not. We know with certitude that the pre v2 sacraments are valid so we can be safe seeking only those.
During my long association with the SSPX, it was a common practice for the SSPX Bishop to offer conditional Confirmation to those who were Confirmed in the N.O. establishment. Does anyone know if this practice still exists? Whenever I attended a “confirmation” for a family member in the N.O. “church”, it was absolutely ridiculous. There was no mention of being Soldiers for Christ or a commitment to defend, fight and promote The Faith. The “bishop” joked how nasty the sacrament was administered before V2 for conferring a slight slap on the cheek which has now been replaced by a friendly, loving handshake. If the SSPX does not conditionally Confirm, it is just any sign of the path they are taking to be “nice” to the Modernist “church”.
I didn’t mean to use the word authority. I know you don’t have it and nor does the SSPX. I meant on what basis have you come to that conclusion. You have basically answered that, but I’m not sure if you directly answered the question “do you believe there are no valid Ordinations from bishops who were consecrated under the new rite?”
I think, if I understand you correctly you don’t think ANY of those Ordinations are valid. You raise a good question about Abp Lefebvre if he said it was a bastard rite.
I have read quite a bit in the new priestly ordination rite but not enough on the NREC. I hear that’s quite a bit worse. I guess I should read more.
Again, the reason I trust the SSPX is not because they are perfect, nor infallible, nor because I think they have authority, but simply because I don’t have the education nor the time to do this all by myself. They are better qualified and Catholic faithful have traditionally looked to their priests to help them with such matters.
I know, I know, times have changed and we have to do some of the work ourselves, says Tom, and I do. So I’ll have to do some more research on this particular issue.
@ Chris R.
In order to arrive at the Truth, we need to possess supernatural Faith in the first place, and then we must ask God to lead us to Truth. The biggest mistake people make is believing that they can figure it all out on their own, using merely reason. Then they reach a conclusion, based on reason alone, or the opinions of men, but this is not Faith. We can do nothing without God’s assistance. Your salvation hangs in the balance. Beg God for the Truth, first, and be willing follow it wherever it may lead you.
I posted a reply but somehow it’s misplaced. Please see it above.
ASB, actually the Church teaches that Truth is arrived at from reason and revelation. Faith is the assent to the Truthes professed by the Church. We do not have to figure it out on our own, the Church has done this for us. Today we have a situation where what appears to be the Church is teaching a gospel in contradiction to what She previously taught. Logic and reason dictate that this is impossible so therefore it cannot be Holy Mother Church. What reason and revelation cannot tell us right now is what happened to the True Church, when will it be restored, etc. But God did reveal to us a time of great deception and loss of faith. It is logical to assume we are living in such a time.
You’re absolutely right, Tom. Thank you for clarifying. I knew I flubbed that one right after posting, but it was late when I’m not at my best and let it go.
Nevertheless, without Supernatural Faith or God’s Grace a person will be blind to the Truth even if it’s staring them directly in the face, or read in an infallible Church or Papal document. That’s what I meant by we can’t do it all by ourselves.
Here’s a quote along those lines by St. Vincent Ferrer:
Ferrer: Those in the 3rd category whom he will try to seduce are learned folk such as masters and doctors of civil and canon law who can argue and grasp the proof of things. Against these antichrist will weave spells of enchantments, bringing out the most subtle arguments, the most seductive reasoning, to render these learned men tongue-tied and incapable of answering. It is not difficult to understand how this is done since the demon already holds their souls in the chains of sin, for the greater their knowledge the more heavy burdened will be their consciences if they do not live up to it. If he can hold their souls on chains it is easy for him to bind a morsel of flesh like the tongue so that they cannot speak except when and what he chooses. The remedy for this state of bondage is faith, which follows simple obedience and not argument or reasoning. Argument may be good for the strengthening of intelligence but it is not the true foundation of faith. Those whose faith rests on reason will lose it when they hear the specious reasoning of antichrist. Those on the contrary who rely on a firm belief founded on obedience will reply ‘away with your arguments! Such reasonings are not the grounds of my faith.’
Listen to the words of this song and remember my fellow brothers and sisters we may disagree but we’re “fools to make war with our brothers in arms”. Until this great crisis is over charity first especially to those we have things in common with.https://youtu.be/Ojo5A64KyX8
Hey Sweepy. Did you see the appeals court in Tallahassee rejected the lawsuit of Rev. John Gallagher?
It was the right decision which means you will make the wrong decision and continue attacking Bishop Barbarito and defending Rev Gallagher who admitted, finally, that he was lying when he claimed it was he who called the cops on the perv priest.
O. and Rev Gallagher did not notify the Diocese as was his duty that the priest he chose to serve at Holy Name was the perv.
Guess the Ref will have to remain in Ireland where he can go on the radio and lie about his actions.
Have fun, Sweepy 🙂