A California Superior Court has issued a preliminary injunction protecting Father Trevor Burfitt and his Catholic parishes from the discrimination being heaped on them by Governor Gavin Newsom and those under his authority in the name of COVID-19 prevention. Thomas More Society attorneys are representing Burfitt in his suit against Newsom and other state, county, and municipal officials.
Judge Gregory Pulskamp issued the order on December 10, prohibiting Newsom and the others named in the lawsuit from enforcing COVID-19 related restrictions against Burfitt. The court specifically singled out the provisions of Newsom’s Blueprint for a Safer Economy and his Regional Stay at Home Order as failing to treat houses of worship in a manner “equal to the favored class of entities,” meaning “[e]ntities permitted to engage in indoor activities – also known as ‘essential businesses’ or ‘critical infrastructure’ – includ[ing] big-box retail stores, grocery stores, home improvement stores, hotels, airports, train stations, bus stations, movie production houses, warehouses, factories, schools, and a lengthy list of additional businesses.”
“After more than nine months of tyranny in the name of ‘containing the spread’ of a virus they have failed to contain, the gubernatorial dictators presiding over draconian lockdowns are running out of runway on their claim that churches are somehow more dangerous viral vectors than any of the litany of ‘essential businesses’ crowded with customers that they allow to operate at 100% capacity.”
“The Supreme Court’s decision in Brooklyn Diocese v. Cuomo has opened the way to the liberation of churches from the absurd and bigoted superstition that they are veritable death chambers threatening the entire population,” said Ferrara. “Not even hair salons, which by the services offered necessitate close personal contact, have been subjected to the onerous and barefaced biases heaped upon houses of worship.”
“We are deeply grateful to Judge Pulskamp for his recognition that, as his decision states (quoting Brooklyn Diocese): “But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten. The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty. Before allowing this to occur, we have a duty to conduct a serious examination of the need for such a drastic measure.”
The ruling noted the Newsom et al. had “not convincingly established that the health risks associated with houses of worship would be any different than ‘essential businesses’ or ‘critical infrastructure.’” Accordingly, the Court held that “Pending a full trial on the merits, Defendants, their agents, and representatives, are hereby enjoined from enforcing against Plaintiff the provisions of the Blueprint for a Safer Economy, the Regional Stay at Home Order, and all Covid-19 restrictions that fail to treat houses of worship equal to the favored class of entities [i.e., ‘essential businesses’].”
Read the order issued December 10, 2020, by Judge Gregory Pulskamp of the Superior Court of California – County of Kern, in Father Trevor Burfitt v. Gavin Newsom, et al. here.
Read the Complaint charging eight counts of violation of California Constitution guarantees, filed on September 29, 2020, by the Thomas More Society on behalf of Father Trevor Burfitt, in Father Trevor Burfitt v. Gavin Newsom, et al. at the Superior Court of the State of California – County of Kern – Metro Division, here.
The above comes from a Dec. 10 email from the Thomas More Society.
Shouldn’t this have been a case brought by the bishops of California?
The headline says “Ninth Circuit: and the article says California Superior Court. One is Federal and the other State.
The SSPX has been one of the only Catholic organizations taking on a leadership role in this crisis, the Los Angeles and other dioceses for the most part awol. God bless the SSPX.
Sorry, but the beloved SSPX has no legal ministry in the Roman Catholic Church. According to Pope Benedict XVI: “The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church” (Letter, March 2009). Now, Pope Francis has graciously allowed that that their confessions be licit, and as well as their nuptial Masses (provided that a priest in union with the Pope, not of SSPX, receives the couple’s wedding vows). But if, for example, a person were to go to a Sunday Mass offered by a priest of the beloved SSPX while there are other available Masses around offered by priests in union with Rome, would be flat wrong.
jon: “But if, for example, a person were to go to a Sunday Mass offered by a priest of the beloved SSPX while there are other available Masses around offered by priests in union with Rome, would be flat wrong.”
Do SSPX priests submit to the Supreme Pontiff? Yes they do. Do they refuse communion with those who submit to the Supreme Pontiff? No they don’t. So people shouldn’t be worried about union-with-Rome problems when it comes to the SSPX (unless by ‘Roman union’ they mean Pachamama union).
And SSPX Masses? We satisfy the Mass obligation by going to Mass “anywhere in a Catholic rite” (see Canon 1248.1). So going to an SSXP priest’s Mass is also fine. There is no sin at all.
And about “legitimate ministries,” the SSPX answers this way: “Canon Law is clear that in a state of necessity (here provoked by the post-conciliar crisis) where the salvation of souls is at stake, the Church herself provides the necessary facilities.” People can learn more about supplied jurisdiction, which Canon Law recognizes, by going to the SSPX website (sspx.org).
T. is completely wrong. No, the priests of the beloved SSPX, by not agreeing to specific documents of the Second Vatican Council, do not therefore submit to the Supreme Pontiff. Moreover, the very disobedient action of Lefebvre by ordaining bishops without the Supreme Pontiff’s permission by itself points to the fact that the Society does not submit to the Pope.
And no, going to a Mass offered by the beloved SSPX is not “also fine.” Their Masses are unlawful; valid, yes, but unlawful. And therefore to go to any of the Society’s Masses when there are other Masses in the area offered by priests obedient to Rome that are also accessible is wrong, if not sinful! Pope Benedict is very clear in his Letter of March 2009 that because of their doctrinal dissent from Rome the beloved SSPX exercises no lawful ministry in the Church.
As for your “post-conciliar crisis,” what crisis? Perhaps a “crisis” is one falsely created by disobedient folks (such as the beloved SSPX) who’d rather have their own stubborn way, thereby wrecking the unity of the Church. Let me put it to you plainly, T., the Church may very well “provide the necessary facilities,” but as long as the beloved SSPX continues to hold on to their stubborn doctrinal dissent from Rome, they will never be part of the Church’s ordinary “necessary facilities.” Now, Popes Benedict and Francis (especially Francis who gave them some faculties) have been very gracious to them; but they, in return, have not. Why? I’ll venture to guess that it’s not all about doctrinal issues folks; but rather, there’s also money. Just follow the money, folks. Why “submit” to the Roman Pontiff, and render some of their income to him when they can keep it all for themselves. How do you think they’re able to build that huge seminary in Virginia?
But still if you persist, go ahead and run to your beloved SSPX, but at the peril of your own salvation. Be warned.
j: “the priests of the beloved SSPX, by not agreeing to specific documents of the Second Vatican Council, do not therefore submit to the Supreme Pontiff.”
That isn’t true, jon. The Appendix to Lumen Gentium reads, “the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding.” Yet nothing was ever delcared to be binding. So whatever you have in mind that the SSPX rejects, it’s nothing the SSPX is bound to and, therefore, could never constitute disobedience.
j: “the very disobedient action of Lefebvre by ordaining bishops without the Supreme Pontiff’s permission by itself points to the fact that the Society does not submit to the Pope.”
Disobedience is not, in itself, immoral. (If the Pope commanded you to adore the Pachamama idol, would you do it?) It is justified whenever necessity requires it, and in the case of Lefebvre, it was believed in good faith that necessity required the consecrations. This kind of disobedience the Church does not condemn (Galatians 1:8).
j: “to go to any of the Society’s Masses when there are other Masses in the area offered by priests obedient to Rome that are also accessible is wrong, if not sinful!”
This isn’t true either. As a Catholic, you’re entitled to go to these Masses if you wish. See the 2003 letter from the PCED. Besides, if it’s so wrong to assist at an SSPX Mass, then why does Rome permit SSPX priests to celebrate Mass at St. Peter’s Basilica?
j: “Pope Benedict is very clear in his Letter of March 2009 that because of their doctrinal dissent from Rome the beloved SSPX exercises no lawful ministry in the Church.”
“Doctrinal dissent”? The Holy Father only mentions “doctrinal questions.” And about “lawful ministry,” this doesn’t mean SSPX priests are always acting unlawfully. Ordinary jurisdiction covers one way of acting lawfully; extraordinary/supplied jurisdiction covers another (the Church recognizes both).
j: “As for your ‘post-conciliar crisis,’ what crisis?”
j: “the Church may very well ‘provide the necessary facilities,’ but as long as the beloved SSPX continues to hold on to their stubborn doctrinal dissent from Rome, they will never be part of the Church’s ordinary ‘necessary facilities’.”
“Doctrinal dissent”? Which doctrine? (And remember, mere opinions and suggestions from Vatican II don’t count.)
j: “Why ‘submit’ to the Roman Pontiff, and render some of their income to him when they can keep it all for themselves.”
Exactly, jon. At the end of the day, the SSPX priests are just greedy evil men. That’s why they live simple lives dedicated to teaching Catholics to love Jesus and Mary.
j: “How do you think they’re able to build that huge seminary in Virginia?”
Through generous Catholics, jon.
Sorry, but the obfuscation and the half-truths written by “T” in defense of the beloved SSPX is very apparent folks.
Firstly, the Appendix to Lumen Gentium specifically states that “The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church’s supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ’s faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation.” Therefore even in those matters not defined by the Council as pertaining to faith and morals, all Catholics must accept and embrace. “T” conveniently ignored the subsequent sentence, which actually refutes his/he point. The plain truth is that all the teachings of the Council must be accepted by all Catholics.
Secondly, “T’s” and the Society’s assertion that Lefebvre’s disobedient ordination of bishops is a “necessity” is contrived. There was no such necessity as judged by the Supreme Pontiff at the time whose judgement in the end is the one that only matters. In fact, John Paul II gave Lefebvre a lot of time and opportunity to reach out to him. And Lefebvre basically ignored it. What Lefebvre did was blatant and sinful disobedience which pained the saintly John Paul greatly. Do not be deceived people by such contrivance. Lefebvre died excommunicated for committing this great sin of disobedience.
Thirdly, if the issue is mere “doctrinal questions,” the beloved SSPX would still be exercising legitimate ministries in the Church. But folks the issue is more than mere “doctrinal questions”; it’s about doctrinal dissent in the final analysis, which is why the beloved SSPX has no legal ministry in the Church. They would not accept specific teachings of the Council, to which the Church urges Catholics to accept and embrace (see the Appendix to Lumen Gentium).
Fourthly, the 2003 Letter that “T” refers to is preceded by a 2002 Letter written by Msgr. Perl of the PCED in answer to a dubia which asked “May a Catholic attend a Mass celebrated by a SSPX priest or a priest from a community close to this Society and receive Holy Communion on a Sunday?” Msgr. Perl’s 2002 Letter was clear in stating that: “NO. Holy Mass must be offered in communion with the Church, the Pope and the local Bishop. Attendance at Masses offered by priests who are not in union with the Church is allowed only in extraordinary circumstances, when access to a Mass offered in union with the Church is impossible. Now, the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are not in union with the Church because of their adhesion to the schism that Archbishop Lefebvre created when consecrating bishops against the will of the Pope, who called this act, accomplished on June 30, 1988, a schismatic act.” Folks like “T” do not tell you that the 2003 Letter actually refers to an earlier letter by Msgr. Perl in 2002 which teaches that ordinarily a Catholic should seek to find a Mass offered by a priest obedient and loyal to the Holy Father.
Fifthly, “T” finally admits that “At the end of the day, the SSPX priests are just greedy evil men.” But I take exception to “T” assertion: “That’s why they live simple lives dedicated to teaching Catholics to love Jesus and Mary.” That is contestable. Our Lord Himself said to his disciples, into whose offices the Pope and the bishops united with him have succeeded: “Whoever listens to you listens to me, whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the One Who sent me” (Luke 10:16). If a person doesn’t listen to Our Lord’s Vicar on earth, can one actually say that this same person listens to Christ and loves Him? Contestable.
Finally, “T” quotes Galatians 1:8. In this letter, St. Paul warns the Galatians not to believe any “gospel” “other than the one you received” from the Apostles. That verse is about authority folks, the authority of the Apostles, and the authority of those who have succeeded them–the Pope and the bishops. Sorry to say, but the beloved SSPX do not have such a legal authority in the true Catholic Church.
By the way, the fact that a priest of the beloved SSPX now-and-then happens to offer Mass at one of the side chapels at St. Peter’s Basilica is irrelevant. According to priest-friends of mine who have travelled to Rome, it seems that the gracious Sacristan at the Basilica has a relaxed attitude to anyone who is attired and presents himself as a cleric. That the priests of the beloved SSPX happens to offer Mass at one of the side chapels points to the relaxed atmosphere in the Sacristy of St. Peter’s, rather than to any change in the beloved SSPX’s non-canonical status in the Church.
Yes. T. truncated the quote from the appendix. jon supplied the rest of the quote.
Bishop Lefebrve died in schism, which is mortal sin. Only God knows his eternal fate but “Be sober and vigilant. Your opponent the devil is prowling around like a roaring lion looking for (someone) to devour.” 1 Peter5:8
We are not entitled to go to SSPX Masses. We are not supposed to go to them. The PCED letter that T. is referring to says:
We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.”
These kinds of lies and distortions and partial truths are what you would expose yourself to if you attend their Masses. Please don’t. Find a Latin Mass that is licit and said by priests who are not excommunicated or suspended. Father Illo at Star of the Sea has some up on Youtube.
jon: “‘T’ conveniently ignored the subsequent sentence, which actually refutes his/he point. The plain truth is that all the teachings of the Council must be accepted by all Catholics.”
You’re misunderstanding the text. The clause that reads “inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church’s supreme magisterium” doesn’t mean ‘they in fact all are the teaching of the Church’s supreme magisterium’. It only means that, when it happens that something magisterial is stated, i.e., magisterial from even before the Council, it must be accepted. The key word here is ‘inasmuch’ (utpote).
jon: “There was no such necessity as judged by the Supreme Pontiff at the time whose judgement in the end is the one that only matters.”
Even if the archbishop was objectively wrong about the need, that doesn’t mean he was guilty of a sin. (Only legalists think otherwise)
jon: “the 2003 Letter that ‘T’ refers to . . .”
It says, “If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.” What is the problem?
jon: “the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are not in union with the Church because . . . Pope, who called this act, accomplished on June 30, 1988, a schismatic act.”
Not in union? That is sheer myth. And about JPII, he was incorrect, and others thought so at the time too. The 1988 quote of Cardinal Lara, a leading legal authority at the time, is a famous illustration: “The act of consecrating a bishop (without the pope’s permission) is not itself a schismatic act.”
Anyway, I hope you’re not holding obedience to be an absolute, jon. What will you do, for example, if the Pope requires reverence before a Pachamama idol? Will you obey?
Firstly, “T” I did not misunderstand anything. All of the teachings in the documents of the Second Vatican Council are teachings of the Church’s supreme magisterium. Therefore, all that is contained in them ought to be accepted and embraced. This was made clear by Pope Paul VI in his General Audience of January 1966, where he said that the Council “still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual documents.” Lumen Gentium’s Appendix wasn’t saying that only part of its teachings of the Council are to be accepted. That’s ludicrous. The fact that your beloved SSPX doesn’t accept all of the teachings of the Council’s is the reason why they have no legitimate ministry in the Church.
Secondly, Lefebvre was indeed most guilty of sinning, which is why he was excommunicated in the first place.
Thirdly, again, the 2003 Letter’s words “it is not a sin,” must be examined in light of the earlier 2002 Letter, also written by Msgr. Perl because that 2003 Letter refers to the earlier one. Let me help you out here “T”: that 2002 Letter said that the faithful must assist at a Mass offered by a priest in union with Rome. Only when access to such a Mass is impossible, under that extraordinary circumstance, may a person go to a Mass offered by the beloved SSPX.
As for your quoting Cardinal Lara, it is much better for the faithful to go by the words of the Supreme Pontiff himself, the saintly John Paul II, who wrote that what Lefebvre did by ordaining bishops without the Pope’s permission was a “schismatic act.” And for you to call a canonized Saint and a Supreme Pontiff “incorrect” says a lot about your need for the grace of obedience, humility, and docility.
jon: “I did not misunderstand anything. All of the teachings in the documents of the Second Vatican Council are teachings of the Church’s supreme magisterium. Therefore, all that is contained in them ought to be accepted and embraced.”
Sorry about the comment you’re responding to. I made a mistake. So let me take a step back: You are saying the line you quoted illustrates that the Council’s documents are magisterial and to be accepted? I agree. I would just stress that the assent that’s due here isn’t the one due to infallible truths, which is the assent at issue in the first line that I quoted. Instead, we’re only required to have the kind of assent that’s conditional and due to the authentic, but non-infallible magisterium. We wouldn’t want to give the other, firmer assent unless something is stated that was already magisterial and infallible. (Sorry if I misunderstood you.)
jon: “The fact that your beloved SSPX . . .”
I have no association with the SSPX.
jon: “[the SSPX] doesn’t accept all of the teachings of the Council’s . . .”
But they also dispute these teachings as Catholic (like the teaching on religious liberty), which isn’t entirely impossible because, again, we are not dealing specifically with the infallible ordinary magisterium of the Church. (I’m not necessarily saying they’re right, just that their disagreement doesn’t inherently mean they’re wrong, as in not Catholic.)
jon: “Let me help you out here ‘T’: that 2002 Letter . . .”
The one letter does refer back to the other, and I think it’s good to read the two as consistently as we can, but the second letter also strikes people like myself as a development of the earlier one rather than as a letter that, in every way, has to be made to conform to the first, if that’s even possible.
Folks, again “T” is wrong. If I may offer an advice here: “T” has to stop finding loopholes and excuses to disobey the disciplines of the Church. Please. Firstly, the minimal assent called for to all the teachings of the Church is a “religious submission of mind and will.” Lumen Gentium itself points that out; moreover, Pope Paul VI emphasizes this by saying that the Council’s teaching “has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful;” and the CDF’s “Donum Veritatis” reiterates this. The fact that your beloved SSPX has no legal ministry in the Church indicates the serious consequences of not adhering to the teachings of the Council with, at least, a religious submission of mind and will. Stop minimizing the assent needed here to all of the teachings of the Council and the Church. There is no right to dissent in the Catholic Church.
And no, you’re still definitely wrong about the 2003 Letter. There was no “development” from one Letter to the next. In fact the 2003 Letter doubles-down on what the earlier 2002 Letter said: “We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin.” The 2002 Letter mentions the only “extraordinary circumstance” when someone may go to a Mass by your beloved SSPX (that is, if access to a Sunday Mass offered by a priest in union with Rome were impossible). If such access to a Mass offered by a priest obedient to Rome is impossible, but because a faithful Catholic wants to go to Sunday Mass “for the sake of devotion” (which is how the 2003 Letter puts it, and which is essentially why we are commended to go to Mass on Sunday—out of love and devotion), then going to a Mass offered by a disobedient priest not in union with Rome would not be a sin in that extraordinary case only. So “T” if there are Masses either in the Ordinary or Extraordinary Forms in your area offered by priests obedient to the Church, and then you decide to go to a Sunday Mass offered by your beloved SSPX farther away, that would be sinful, because other than for devotion and obedience to God and to His Church, what further motive could there be for going to an illicit and illegal Mass to which the Church has told us not to go in the first place. Repent “T”, repent.
@jon: regarding the assent that’s at issue with the Council documents, it’s only one we’re required to have conditionally, that is, on the condition of nothing contrary to the Faith or no reasonable doubt to the contrary. It’s not the kind that’s due to infallible magisterium (which of course is due wherever the Council restates already accepted dogma). I say this not minimize but to clarify why, in being critical of the Council, the SSPX is not necessarily disobedient or not Catholic.
About the 2003 letter: I understand better what you’re saying. Fulfilling your Sunday obligation at an SSPX Mass is sinless only if one’s intention is only devotional _and_ there is no other option? Even if we agree that’s Perl’s final position, and I think it probably is, there is still the question of whether it’s correct in view of Canon 1248.1 Even more mainstream priests like Fr. Z recognize that Catholics can go to SSPX Masses on Sunday with no problem: “Yes, you can fulfill your obligation at an SSPX chapel. No, you don’t need to be in a situation where you can’t get to another Mass at a recognized church or chapel. Wanting to go is reason enough.”
You also speak again of my “beloved SSPX,” but this is misleading. As I’ve said, I have no association with the SSPX. (Although, I do believe it’s important that Catholics understand they have a right to assist at SSPX Masses.)
Have no doubts about it, “T” that your beloved SSPX is indeed disobedient to the Church. Whether or not they can call themselves “Catholic” is doubtful because of their adherence to Lefebvre’s schismatic act of disobeying the Pope by ordaining bishops without his permission. Additionally, they have separated themselves from the Church by not adhering to all of the teachings of the Magisterium especially the Second Vatican Council with a religious submission of mind and will. Your hair-splitting is useless, “T”. They are disobedient to the Church; and if they are disobedient to the Church, which is God’s Mystical Body, they are being disobedient to God. Period.
Plus, going to a Mass of your beloved SSPX when there are other Masses in the area being offered by priests in union with Rome is very much a sin. Msgr. Perl’s Letters are very clear on this.
T. No they do not submit to the Pope or to the Church. If they did, they would not have chapels because only a diocesan bishop can establish them and none of them have been established by diocesan bishops. They are separated, they have no canonical status in the Church, their ministers do not exercise any ministry in the Church and they are all suspended.
According to you my Mass obligation is satisfied by going anywhere in a Catholic rite. I don’t think that is true. You could end up somewhere where the priest is not validly ordained. As for the SSPX, the general rule is that you should not attend an illicit Mass if you have the option of a licit Mass in communion with the Church.
There is no necessity that permits the SSPX to do what they are doing. They are distorting a point in canon law which allows priests to hear confession in an emergency (like a bomb shelter) even if they do not have faculties from the diocesan bishop.
T , jons quote “says a lot about your need for the grace of obedience, humility, and docility.” is rich in his lack of graces of humility , docility and respect , as far as obedience that would be the unquestioning kind that he seems to think he has and we should acquiesce to . With jon it’s heads I win tails you lose , his posts for this or any season are a humbug,
Perhaps we can give HUMBUG this: he/she is right only in that with regards to folks who promote heresy and disobedience to the Church, her ministers, and to God, I have no docility and respect for such folks.
Well jon, thanks for your opinion but it has absolutely no bearing on where I go to Mass.
The priests of the SSPX are suspended. They are not supposed to be saying Mass.
SSPX may sometimes have red necks but they’ve got other body parts our bishops sometimes, and especially in this case, seem to lack..
The beloved SSPX lacks one pivotal thing: their ministry lack Canonical legality in the Church. Go to their illicit Masses and risk incurring the sin of disobedience.
Thank God for the S.S.P.X. for they alone have saved the True Mass of All Times! Oh I know come and start shooting arrows at me from all sides because I dared to say The True Mass of All Times! Like I have always said keep your dinner table, dancing girls, altar girls, lay lectors, communion in the hand while standing, rock, mariachi, folk music, hand holding, kiss of peace, while the list can go on but you get it.
Well, guess what RA: The Church in her wisdom has seen it fit to reform the Tridentine Mass. And I daresay, it was necessary to reform it. Why? The Church’s liturgy must be in harmony with Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. And the TLM, as much as I also love it, falls short with Scriptural harmony. No where in the witness of the Gospels did Our Lord ever say “mysterium fidei.” No where. Where did it that phrase come from? It’s man-made. Therefore, the Ordinary Form, has made the Catholic Mass much more in harmony with all three legs: Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium. The “Mass of All Time” is not only the TLM, but also the Ordinary Form.
1Timothy 3:9, “Holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience.” — Douay-Rheims
“Holding fast to the mystery of faith with good conscience.” — 1 Timothy 3:9, New American Bible
By the way, Jon, even the King James version says the same thing as the Douay-Rheims, “Holding the mystery of faith in pure conscience.” – KJV.
“They must hold to the mystery of faith with a clear conscience”, same passage in the New Jerusalem Bible, Catholic edition.
Then Colossians 2; 2-3 and other passages refer to the mystery of God or godliness.
So what is manmade about “mysterium fidei”?
Anne TE is flat wrong. Read carefully. At the Canon of the Mass, the priest prays that “after He had supped, taking also this excellent chalice into His holy and venerable hands….saying…” The priest at that point is meant to quote the very words of Our Lord at the Last Supper. Dear Anne TE, where in the witness of the Gospels, did Our Lord at the Last Supper say “mystery of faith”? Nowhere. I tell you folks, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council were very correct to call for the reform of the Mass in order to address man-made additions like this in the TLM which contradict Scripture. There are folks here that bewail “dancing girls, shaking hands, drums and guitars” at Mass. Folks, I don’t like those things myself; but how about this egregious deviation in the Canon from the witness of Scripture? Thank God for the Ordinary Form of the Mass.
Jon, I was just objecting to your term “man made”. I was just saying that the term “mystery of faith” has always referred to the Eucharist too and is a very Biblical term and not “man made”. Some of the Apostles might have used it in the liturgy as they used the term, or some pious pope added it. I have no idea if it is or is not necessary in liturgy, but it is a beautiful and Biblical insertion in the older Latin Mass.
See: #2558 in Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition on the whole “Mystery of Faith”, which includes the Creed.
Jon, not everything the Lord told the Apostles, or the Apostles told the early Church fathers, is in the Bible. Perhaps He allowed one of the early church fathers to use it in the liturgy at the last consecration. To say that the Mass used in the Latin Church for the Latin Rite for hundreds of years contains serious errors is stretching it a bit. Liturgies do need to be brought up to date while remaining faithful to the past.
Anne TE is again wrong. Your various speculation on how the phrase “mysterium fidei” was inserted into the words of consecration is just that: pure speculation. The objective fact is that Our Lord never said that phrase at the Last Supper, as proven by the absence of that phrase in the Four Gospels. Because of this, the liturgy rightfully needed to be reformed. And please do not put words in my mouth. I did not use the words “serious errors”–that’s your phrase. It is not “stretching it a bit” to say that the TLM contained an “egregious deviation” (my phrase) from the witness of Scripture. Based on this, the phrase “mysterium fidei” in the words of consecration, is most likely man-made. And I deliberately use the phrase “man-made” because that is “Romulus Augustus’s” (how did he ever earn that name, btw) incessant criticism of the Ordinary Form.
Amen ! check out the 2020 Vatican nativity scene for more of the same ,the SSPX have done the fighting and taken the fire during this crisis, the usccb , some prominent bishops that speak out at sjw functions /causes again awol. To some they are beloved , others I am sure are envious of that esteem , I would seek council from a priest from the SSPX, then say a poster on a blog, they have shown courage , action and faith . Again God bless them
A suspended priest is not someone you should seek counsel from, in general. I think they can tell you some things and be right; other things (especially questions in the areas where they disagree with the Church so much that they are suspended) they may be wrong. This is true of course of anyone on earth. A person who posts here may know what they are talking about, they may not. Our job is to research it and make informed choices. Courage and action does not mean that a person is right on something. All these protesters have courage and action.
Well, for one thing: How can a priest of the beloved SSPX counsel a Catholic faithful to be obedient and faithful to God, when he himself, by his association with that group, has demonstrated to be disobedient and unfaithful to God’s Bride on earth, His Church?
jon, there are ways that an SSPX priest can counsel a Catholic to be obedient and faithful to God just like Catholic lay people and even some non-Catholics can.
Should I go out with a lady from work that I am attracted to if we will only be in public spaces?
Should I miss Mass on Sunday to go to a ball game if I promise to go twice next week?
If I go to a wedding on Saturday, do I have to go to Mass on Sunday?
Is it wrong to take a blind man’s pencil jar?
You get it.
You’re wrong Anonymous. Undergirding all of the advice that a priest may give a Catholic concerning those issues you raised–missing Mass, petty theft, dating–and other issues, is faithfulness and obedience to the commandments of God and the discipline of the Church. Therefore, how can a priest who belongs to a group that is fundamentally disloyal and disobedient to the Church’s Magisterium authentically encourage a lay Catholic to be faithful and obedient to the Church and ultimately to God? He can’t. He can’t authentically counsel anyone about faithfulness to God and obedience to the Church even in those small details of daily life (dating, going to Mass, petty theft). I wouldn’t go to any one of them, and neither should anyone who wants authenticity from his/her counselor. But not only is the beloved SSPX’s authenticity damaged; who knows what heresies they may inject in their counsels. You get it.
I agree it would not be a trusted source. And I would not seek counsel from one either. And maybe my answer was petty.
My point, badly made, is that they are not wrong on everything. And that is why they attract people. They are separated and not a part of the Catholic Church but a person could attend their chapels, theoretically, and never encounter a spoken error and not realize they are in an deceiving environment, or they could be easily misled by error because to some people the SSPX appears more “faithful” than their local diocese.
Not knowing how to discern, disgruntled Catholics and even innocent Catholics looking for a Latin Mass, can easily become taken in by them.
I was appalled at the comment that this priest left on the last article about him. It was the same tactics that cults use. “Who’s really the faithful one?”
People, Anonymous’ words up there is why I truly believe that the phrase “wolves in sheep’s clothing”–which many of the habitués of this blog always throw at the legitimate clergy of the Church, such as our Pope and bishops–more rightfully applies to the priests and bishops of the beloved SSPX. Sorry to say.
Anonymous, “Our job is to research it and make informed choices.” Yes I agree that is why I would engage in a respectful dialog with them , by my own judgement I would see and judge for myself , I would hear their side , and go from there.” Courage and action does not mean that a person is right on something. All these protesters have courage and action.” Your omission of faith in your critique is telling , let me clarify ,moral courage , the SSPX displayed it in civil disobedience in the practice of their rights , and through the courts all done peacefully. All the protestors do not have courage and action , their is a difference in how that action is expressed , courage ?, no ! the destructive ones are not courageous they are dangerous , there is a difference in courage used in and with faith for our rights ,and the actions and behavior sometimes violent and antisocial protesters , there is a difference in the quality of courage of the peaceful and that of the actions of violent protestors.
Rick W. The Vatican is engaging in respectful dialog with them. Remember, it is they who refuse full communion.
Yes, I intentionally left out faith because I do not doubt that they have some faith. They probably believe every tenet of the Creed but there is a dispute between them and the Vatican on certain things and they do not accept the entirety of the Catholic Faith.
You may dialog with them and believe they are right on some things. But if you choose them over the Pope then YOU become a schismatic even if THEY are not in formal schism.
A lot of Catholics believe things that are not taught by the Catholic Church (reincarnation, right to abortion and gay marriage, all people go to Heaven etc). There is a lot of error, schism, heresy even in Catholics. Do you know the prayer to St. Michael? And the one to St. Joseph that asks him to protect us from all contagion of error and corrupting influence?
Cardinal Sarah has talked about a fluid atheism and a fluid secularism. My understanding of his concept is that anywhere where a Catholic has not solidly learned Catholic Truth, atheism and materialism enter their belief system. It is the same, I believe, with heresy, schism and error. Even good Catholic, faithful Catholics have areas of vulnerability. Sometimes, people just prefer their own ideas to the Church’s. They just think the Church is wrong and they are right.
Anonymous, a reasonable post, I do know the St. Michaels prayer and the St. Josephs prayer , I am sure the SSPX say them on a regular basis . The errors that you speak of I don’t disagree entirely with that is on the laity , but the clergy bears some responsibility . The St. Michaels prayer and the three Hail Mary’s was removed from the end of mass why ? the church and it’s clergy have not passed this on this and other needed truths, they misuse the the time and money given by a ever shrinking laity . I don’t believe that the pope outside of his limited and legitimate infallibility dogmas, the last one in 1950 , is without error and should not be challenged . The current pope I believe has not been a force for clarity , the current “nativity scene ” the earth mother coin , and the pacamama profanation, do not endear faith and respect , his errors require correction. Areas of vulnerability , yes ! , as does the church, that has abused the trust and confidence of the laity , the moral authority it should have, is diminished by scandals and sjw posturing , i.e. he meets with the NBA and not Cardinal Zen . Good reference to Cardinal Sarah , others could learn from the tone of your post.
I think I hear some SSPX priests choking right now.
Not sure whether the typo was mine or edited but I meant SSPV
Romulus Augustus, this is confusing to a lot of people. There are a Catholic priests who leave the Church and continue to say Mass. The faithful who are poorly instructed just see the Mass and think it is fine. They think it is the same thing as a Catholic Mass. Often, they have issues with the Church themselves so they are more comfortable in these separated chapels.
A poorly done Mass in the Catholic Church even with all the things that turn you off is still a Catholic Mass with all the merits and graces.
The priests of the SSPX are suspended. They are not supposed to be saying Mass. When they do, it is illicit.
I know there are people who do not care. They want what they want and they get it from the SSPX. We need to pray for everyone involved in this order and those who attend their chapels.
Pope Francis has mercifully extended some faculties to this order so perhaps one day they will be in full communion with the Catholic Church.
“I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.”
Thank you. Best comment yet.
Anonymous, you are mixing independent priests that do masses on their on with the SSPX , they have their own priests and if they leave that order they operate as independents. The poor instruction of the faithful I agree with some of it is on them but the clergy have not done its job to instruct the laity in word and deed. “A poorly done Mass in the Catholic Church even with all the things that turn you off is still a Catholic Mass with all the merits and graces.” that opinion of yours is wrong and it illustrates why people leave ,” turn you off” , yes liturgical abuses turn a lot of people off, poorly done mass’s are an insult to God and the faithful, that is why they seek out alternatives or leave altogether . These people take the faith seriously , they do not leave the faith , they choose to practice it in a traditional way , given the way some in the hierarchy act ,they are the better Catholics . Graces and merits in a poorly done mass ? if it is poorly done whatever graces and merits are not realized by the faithful since it is poorly done , in what other area of faith and life are we called to accept something poorly done ?.
Sorry, but Rick W’s statement here is heretical: that “Graces and merits in a poorly done mass, if it is poorly done whatever graces and merits are not realized by the faithful since it is poorly done.” This is wrong. The Church dealt with issues like this which is similar to the Donatist heresy during the 4th through the 6th centuries. The truth is that as long as a validly ordained priest who is in union with his bishop and with the Pope intends to offer the Sacrifice of Our Lord, the sacrament is valid and licit, and the faithful can be assured that if their hearts are open God will bestow His graces upon them. God is more powerful than any human defects and deficiencies–even in a poorly done human work or liturgy. God is merciful, people. Therefore, if God wills to bestow His grace upon you, and you’re open to Him, He will do it.
So jon, how do you determine heresy and what sources do you use ? what are your qualifications , are you a canon lawyer ? am I being charged by you formally in a ecclesiastical court ? , is disagreeing with you heresy ? is there a trial and appeals process ? are there levels i.e. misdemeanor /felony or is all the same in the eyes of jon ?. Lighten up francis
Rick W’s point that “Graces and merits in a poorly done Mass, if it is poorly done, are not realized by the faithful since it is poorly done” is wrong because it counters the principle of “ex opere operato” (Latin for “from the work done”): meaning, that the efficacy of the sacraments does not come from the worthiness of the priest or the faithful, but from the work itself. Moreover, provided that the form and the matter are in order, the sacrament is valid and efficacious. God can do whatever He wills; He can grant His graces on people regardless of whether or not the Mass is in Latin or English, or even if there are “dancing girls” or drums. God is more powerful than liturgical abuses, folks. There are a number of saints who refer to “ex opere operato” such as St. Augustine who refuted the Donatists (check out his Tractates on the Gospel of John), and St. Thomas Aquinas who wrote about the matter and form of the sacraments.
Do these poorly done masses drive away the laity with whatever graces and merits they have ? ( I think the numbers say yes ) I think also God could be driving them with these graces and merits to a properly done , reverent mass, i.e. showing them the bad , so as to appreciate the good . Would a dignity mass have these graces and merits ? would a solemn high or low mass have more graces then a poorly done one ? if the Eucharist is profaned or misused are the merits and graces diminished ? . Do poorly done masses serve and honor God ? is it a mass or a religious entertainment ?., I believe that Venerable Bishop Sheen had it right when he said we are at the foot of the cross during mass , why do we tolerate such sacrilege , and condemn those who do not ?. Still waiting on the heresy questions.
“If anyone shall say that grace, as far as concerns God’s part, is not given through the sacraments always and to all men, even though they receive them rightly, but only sometimes and to some persons: let him be anathema.” (Canon 7, Session VII, March 1547, Council of Trent).
Rick W. That is the temptation. The temptation does not justify the sin. It is not God who drives people from the Church. When you go to an SSPX Mass in an SSPX chapel, you are not going to a Catholic Church. So there is no way that it is God who leads them there. Perhaps God keeps them from going further astray.