Just in passing on Ewtn I heard that the Mass has been the same since about the 4th century I heard that while walking through the room Yes we need to research this
Watch or listen to this video when you have time SG. It is a presentation comparing the two rites by Michael Davies.
Don’t worry, I understand this more than you could know. My preference for the TLM contributed to the breakup of my marriage/family.
There are many Eucharistic miracles. If interested you can research it. Here are just a few recent ones: http://dowym.com/voices/5-incredible-eucharistic-miracles-from-the-last-25-years/ As far as the sedevacantists, they are the only group I am aware of that question the validity of the sacraments as they were reworked after Vatican II. I am not saying you are a sedevacantist. I am saying if people go looking on the internet and find websites questioning the validity of the new rites then they will most likely be at a sedevacantist website. That is why I brought them up and it is an important thing to know for anyone who sees this discussion and may go looking for information themselves.
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2018/04/sacrilege-communion-pope-francis-vs.html?m=1 Sacrilege Communion: Pope Francis vs. Pope Benedict XVI Vatican expert Maike Hickson at Onepeterfive reported: "A possible reason as to why Pope Francis wishes this CDF [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] letter [accordingly to Kath.net approved by Francis rejecting the majority of the German bishops move to give Communion to Protestants] to remain unpublished is that he is not happy with it." "... it was Pope Francis himself who... in 2015... opened up to the idea that a Protestant spouse could... [receive] Holy Communion... One well-informed clerical source therefore told Onepeterfive that this move was coming "from the very top in Rome [Francis]." (Onepeterfive.com," A Crucial Moment For the Church: Intercommunion Debate in Rome in May," April 30, 2018) Vatican expert Edward Pentin revealed: ""The Register understands from reliable and authoritative sources that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has given his full support to the seven [German] bishops and their letter to the Vatican [CDF which rejected the move to give sacrilege Communion to Protestants]. (National Catholic Register, "Complete Letter of Seven German Bishops on Holy Communion for Protestant Spouses Published," April 25, 2018) If both reports are true then this is the first time that Benedict has directly went against Francis's moves to give Communion sacrilegiously. Benedict never countered Francis's moves to give Communion sacrilegiously to adulterous couples, but is apparently directly moving against the current pope, if Onepeterfive's source is correct that the majority of German bishops move comes "from the very top in Rome," on sacrilegiously shared Communion with Protestants Former consulter to the Congregation for the Doctrine the Faith Msgr. Nicola Bux told Pentin: "hared Eucharistic Communion... would 'go against Revelation and the Magisterium', leading Christians to 'commit blasphemy and sacrilege.'" (National Catholic Register, "Theologian: Shared Communion With Protestants Would be Blasphemy and Sacrilege," January 2, 2017)
This is what I was talking about SG. The Novus Ordo is a valid Mass if done properly. It can confect the sacrament if done properly. That is the conclusion the SSPX came to as well as others. However it very often littered with liturgical abuses. As Brian pointed out that may make most Novus Ordo Masses as illicit as any other Mass said in such a manner such as the SSPX, or a Mass said by a priest whose faculties have been revoked, etc. As Catholics we are not supposed to attend illicit Masses possibly excepting if there is no other alternative.
I saw this Aletia article posted on another forum recently and something prompted me to save the link. While it may not answer your question in detail, it gives a rough idea of what happened at Mass in the second century. Being a linguistic ignoramous, I'm guessing, but it looks like he was using the Greek word for Eucharist. What struck me about the article was that in today's Church St. Justin Martyr would be labelled as an uncharitable rigorist for wanting to exclude from the Eucharist anyone who doesn't believe all that the Church teaches and is not "living as Christ has enjoined". Someone needs to dig the Saint's apology out of the Vatican archives and give it to Pope Francis and the German bishops. https://aleteia.org/2017/04/13/what-was-mass-like-for-the-early-christians/ What was Mass like for the early Christians? 2,000 years later, the essentials have not changed Holy Thursday marks the Institution of the Holy Eucharist at the Last Supper. It is when Jesus exhorted his disciples to “do this in memory of me.” While this first Eucharist was celebrated in the context of the Jewish Passover, the early Christians soon distinguished themselves by offering the Eucharist on a regular basis and developing their own traditions. What was it like, 2,000 years ago? How did the early Christians celebrate Mass? In fact, we have an accurate description of this celebration from a saint of the early Church. St Justin Martyr, who lived between 100 and 165, was a philosopher and Christian apologist. He desired greatly to share his newfound Christian faith and to explain it in a way that would be understood by the pagans of the Roman Empire. St Justin proceeded to submit an account of Christian worship to the Roman Emperor in order to clear up many misconceptions. Below is an excerpt from his “First Apology” that details the early liturgy of the Christian Church. It will sound quite familiar to a Catholic today. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs [letters] of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president [the presiding priest or bishop] verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succors the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration. And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, [Luke 22:19] this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone.
Brian, I have researched this also but it is very confusing. I bolded in red a statement from Cardinal Hoyos in your post which may be helpful. As you stated it originates from the following wikipdeia page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_situation_of_the_Society_of_Saint_Pius_X I just found the following article from the Church Militant which also may be helpful. It includes recent statements from Cardinal Burke and Cardinal Mueller on the status of the SSPX. If the CM is correct they also clarify Pope Francis' status on the SSPX, "...Pope Francis granted an indult to the SSPX to hear confessions and, more recently, to officiate at weddings (on condition that no diocesan priests are available and the local bishop approves). Both overtures were made for the benefit of the faithful, and formally changed nothing regarding the official status of the SSPX, whose priests remain suspended a divinis and are therefore forbidden to offer the other sacraments." So the SSPX mass is forbidden but not invalid, is that correct? This is why I feel that it is very confusing but on the other hand I am not searching out an SPPX parish to become a member of anyway. I did recently look for locations for where the TLM (valid and licit) is being said and there are not many options in my area but I found one parish relatively close which says one Sunday TLM mass in their chapel. I am going to keep this in mind. I feel that it is necessary to add that I can't imagine the SSPX returning to regular communion with the Catholic Church until the present situation in the Church is straightened out. *********** Cdl Burke: SSPX in Schism News: Christine Niles, M.St. (Oxon.), J.D. • ChurchMilitant.com • October 2, 2017 Among highest-ranked prelates to make such a claim MEDFORD, Ore. - The former head of the Vatican's highest court is saying the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) is "in schism." In newly released audio, Cdl. Raymond Burke, former head of the Apostolic Signatura, made the remarks at the Sacred Liturgy conference in Medford, Oregon in July. In answer to a question about attending liturgies offered by the priestly group, Burke said: [T]he fact of the matter is that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X is in schism since the late Abp. Marcel Lefebvre ordained four bishops without the mandate of the Roman Pontiff. And so it is not legitimate to attend Mass or to receive the sacraments in a church that's under the direction of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X. Burke is among the highest-ranking prelates in the Church to state that the SSPX is in schism. Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has also said the SSPX is in schism, in comments made in 2013 to the Italian press: The canonical excommunication of the bishops for their illegal ordinations was revoked, but a de facto sacramental excommunication remains for their schism; they put themselves out of communion with the Church. After that we are not closing the door and never will, but we are inviting them to be reconciled. But they too must change their attitude, accept the conditions of the Catholic Church, and the Supreme Pontiff as the definitive criterion for membership. Canon law differentiates between formal schism — which requires an official pronouncement from the Holy See — and material schism — which manifests in a party's words and actions, even though no official pronouncement by the Church has been made. It's the latter to which Burke is referring. The 69-year-old cardinal acknowledged the confusion that has ensued since Pope Francis granted an indult to the SSPX to hear confessions and, more recently, to officiate at weddings (on condition that no diocesan priests are available and the local bishop approves). Both overtures were made for the benefit of the faithful, and formally changed nothing regarding the official status of the SSPX, whose priests remain suspended a divinis and are therefore forbidden to offer the other sacraments. "[T]here is no canonical explanation for it, and it is simply an anomaly," Burke remarked on the recent indults. "They're no longer excommunicated, but they're also not in regular communion with the Catholic Church." In Pope Benedict's 2009 letter addressing the remission of the excommunications of the four founding bishops of the SSPX, he confirmed that "until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers — even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty — do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church." In light of this status, which has not formally changed, Burke warned the faithful it was best to avoid SSPX liturgies. I don't think it's a good sign to receive sacraments in the Priestly Society of St. Pius X because that's not helping them to, first of all, the sacraments are not celebrated licitly. They're valid; there's no question about it if the priests are validly ordained, but ... it's a countersign to the communion of the Church. Instead we should be encouraging the members of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X to be reconciled with the Church. Although the Holy See has been in talks on and off with the SSPX since the illicit 1988 consecrations, no agreement has ever been reached between the two parties. Questions of doctrine in the documents of Vatican II are often the sticking point preventing the priestly society from signing any agreement. SSPX Superior General Bp. Bernard Fellay was among the signatories of the Filial Correction submitted to the pope September 23 asking him to clarify seven points of alleged heresy in Amoris Laetitia, the apostolic exhortation on marriage and the family that has led to worldwide confusion and varying interpretations. https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/cdl-burke-sspx-in-schism ************ The following article contains the audio clip and transcript of Cardinal Burke's statements on the SSPX, http://angelqueen.org/2017/10/01/cardinal-burke-slams-fsspx/
Dolours, Thank you! Someone just started a thread asking who our favorite Church Father is and I don't know enough about them to really say but I was thinking of Justin the Martyr at the time and now I realize that he really may be my favorite Church Father.
Although in general CM does great work, I do NOT trust their analysis of the SSPX. One of their major contributors has a burr under his saddle regarding the SSPX and it has biased all of CM’s reports about the SSPX. Regarding Cardinal Burke’s statements, this is the one single subject I fear he has gotten wrong, and I prefer Cardinal Hoyos’ opinion, as the status of the SSPX was his primary job under JPII/ BXVI. Cardinal Mueller is all over the map on this and many other subjects and I usually just roll my eyes at much of what he says, because he’ll probably just contradict himself next time he speaks on the subject. (Interestingly, I was once a moderator on the Angelqueen site you linked, but that was in their early days, and my criticisms of the excesses of the SSPX were not welcome, so I stopped.)
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/card-hoyos-sspx-communion-no-schism Card. Castrillon: SSPX Never in Schism Cardinal Castrillon exiting the sacristy after celebrating a recent Mass The media's and some bishops' constant attack on the SSPX is "Schismatic" and "Not in Communion." Card. Castrillon sets the record straight. Columbian Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, who served as president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei from 2000-2009, said in an interview with Rome Reports in mid-March 2017 that the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) “never entered down the path of heresy.” They had moments when they were away, but technically they never made any complete schism or heresy. For example, they did not create a separate jurisdiction, because to create a jurisdiction outside the jurisdiction of the Church, that means you want to separate. It is not the first time that Cardinal Hoyos declared that the SSPX is not in schism nor heresy. In September 2005 he declared to Gianni Cardinale for 30 Giorni [30 Days]: “Unfortunately Archbishop Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism." And again, on November of the same year in Italian TV Canal 5: We are not dealing with a case of heresy. One cannot say in correct and exact terms that there is a schism. There is, in the act of ordaining bishops without papal approval, a schismatic attitude. They are within the confines of the Church. The problem is just that there is a lack of a full, a more perfect—and as it was said during the meeting with Bishop Fellay—a more full communion, because communion exists. In his recent interview, Cardinal Hoyos declared that, in his opinion, SSPX’s views are reactions to incorrect interpretations and implementations of Vatican II documents. There were points without total clarity. Many of the architects of a post-council dealt with those points in a way that was not in line with the Council, which in itself is completely valid. They made interpretations that were not in keeping with either the Council or the Magisterium. We could ask Cardinal Hoyos to explain what this term of “full communion” means. The adjective “full” does not appear in any classical understanding of communion. For the Church, communion is or is not and She precisely teaches that the sin which destroys communion is schism. If there is not schism, as Hoyos affirms, therefore there is no lack of communion. Source: romereports
When there is no one “official” well articulated position put out by the Church, we are free to disagree. But Cardinal Hoyos had competence to speak on this issue, as head of Ecclesia Dei, and has done so publicly and consistently for well over a decade. Cardinal Burke’s opinion was expressed as an aside in a Q&A at a talk on another topic and as such it was never published or publicly released. It was rumored for several months but was not verified until one trad blogger got his hands on a recording someone made of the talk. If it weren’t for that, his private opinion on the subject would not have been made public. Obviously it was not advanced as the position of the universal Church but simply the private opinion of a Cardinal. Therefore as much as I love and respect Cardinal Burke, his private off the cuff opinion on this subject does not carry the weight of the repeatedly publicly expressed and published words of THE Cardinal whose principle task it was at Ecclesia Dei to study the issue.
