I was a boy when Vatican II was going on.  The Faith and (SSPX) Mass that I go to now, someone else fought for, and was given to me.  It is my turn now to fight these battles…to pass it on to the next generation.

Indeed! Like the traditionalist Catholics who responded as the betrayal of Vatican II became apparent, this current generation of traditionalist Catholics must respond to the Menzingen sellout.

Yes, the Sunday High Mass Cross Bearers at IC Post Falls, St. Dominic's Girl's School AND the Carmelites in Spokane Valley have been eliminated as per Fr. Vassal.

FOLKS, WHEN WILL YOU WAKE UP???????

Welcome to the Church of Fellay™. :dancing-banana: :dancing-banana:

I need to add in the updates above one more “piece of the betrayal” that I forgot to include (a lot is going on):

•   In the 4- High Mass processions from the back of the Church, as was written above, one of them was Christmas and got the Cross-Bearer (Deo Gratias…it was only for our Lord’s birthday right Fr. Vassal?), the added part to this is, as another one of the four processions came from the back of the Church today with Fr. Haynos, and no Cross-Bearer my friend said, though he didn’t know why (?); however, of the other remaining two processions left that had happened, with again no Cross-Bearer, one of them that did come from the back had a very BIG procession that included the Eucharist Crusades Chapter, and the Holy Name Society Chapter  –That is very formal, along with the uniforms he said, to process in with two of the Church’s Social action groups!  Bottom line –the Cross Bearer was kicked out of that procession as well!

How are these neo-SSPX priests going to answer to God…?

But I guess we should wait until something concrete "happens" in the SSPX before we take action.  :rolleyes:

(For the sarcasm-challenged: I was being sarcastic!)

My question:

Do they use a Cross Bearer in processions in the Novus Ordo?

An update on Fr. Vassal’s liberal tactic of removing the cross bearer.

I received information from a friend in Post Falls, in which he spoke to Fr. Vassal after one of the Masses there, for about 20-minutes on the subject of why did he (Fr. Vassal) remove the Cross bearer.

He wrote down, in summary, the exchange of their conversation.

The question that was asked of Fr. Vassal, was:  Fr. Vassal, why did you remove the Cross bearer from the Mass.  Fr. Vassal responses follow:

-   It is a Law of the Church.  A Canon Law.  The cross bearer in the rubrics is only for a Bishop.
-   It is in my conscience that I need to remove the “abuse”.
-   The “use” of the cross bearer in procession was actually started in France in revolt to the Bishop in France; from there it went everywhere.
-   (Question)  Well, it is still in France today.  It is still in Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet and other places.
-   Yes, but the priest over there does not want to do it.  I do not think it is a problem.
-   Many people may not understand.  So we will have it on Holy Name Society Sunday; and some big feast days.
-   (Question) If it is “objective” as you say, and it is the Law, then why do you have it sometimes?  Why not get rid of it altogether?
-   I would like to.  But we can do it sometimes in procession.
-   (Question) Did you ask the district superior about removing the Cross bearer?  
-   No. (With a shrug of his shoulders, shaking his head, squinting his eyebrows).  I don’t think that I need to.
-   I do not see a problem.  It is just a small thing.  (Fr. Vassal held his fingers up with a very small gap between his fingers.)
-   (Question) Well isn’t that subjective to do it sometimes?  
-   Well maybe.  But it is just a small thing.
-   If it is “objective”, why isn’t it done in the rest of the district?  It is not removed in the seminary?
-   I don’t know.  (Shrug of shoulders.)
-   (Question) Isn’t it true in the Church, that if there is a Custom already established, not to remove it?  
-   Well, yes, that is true.  But it is a Law; so I need to remove it.  It is still only a little problem.  I do not think that people will mind once they know.
-   (Question) I mind!  And many people in the parish are talking about this.  
-   Why haven’t they come to me and say something?  Then I will need to give a sermon on “rash judgment”.  (It was Fr. Vassal that did not communicate this; and it was Fr. Vassal that caused the confusion; which caused in his view – people having a rash judgment!).  
-   It is just a little problem.  
-   (Question) No, Fr. Vassal, it is a very big problem!
-   Well you are the only one that spoke to me.  Why did you come to me so late to speak of this?  
-   (Answer) Because you have not been here often doing masses; nor, when you were here, you did not come out after mass as you usually do.
-   That is right.  I have not been here much lately.
-   (Question) Fr. Vassal, you did not even announce it from the pulpit that you were going to remove the Cross bearer.  You did not even write it in a newsletter.  You did not say anything about it.  You just did it.  I know you are a foreigner in this country; but in this country when the Novus Ordo came out, the new church also made these changes little by little without telling anyone…and you are doing the same thing.  So yes, it is a big problem!
-   Well maybe it was not prudent to do it without telling anyone.  Maybe when I get back, I will think about it.  But it is just a little thing.  (Shrug of shoulders.)  I do not think it is a problem.
-   (Question) Isn’t it important to teach people and the children about the cross and the importance of it?  There is a boy’s school here.  I know that many of the boys who serve are confused; and do not know what is going on.  Isn’t the Crucifix the standard of our religion; of the Faith; of the Mass.  Isn’t it the standard bearer, like in the earlier days where ever the standard bearer went, it was a message of communication.  To get rid of the Cross bearer, the crucifix, is detrimental to the faith.
-   There is still a cross on the altar.  I do not think it is a problem.
-   (Back and forth…back and forth…each of them saying the same thing.  Neither of them budging.  Fr. Vassal kept looking at his watch; and said at many times that he is trying to find someone.  He needs to go.  Then he left).


Conclusion.  

My friend said that he is going to write a letter to Fr. Rostand, the District Superior, with what took place in their conversation and see if he will do anything about it.  

So yes, Fr. Vassal, to remove the Crucifix of Jesus Christ is a BIG problem!

It is fervent Catholics that adore the Cross; it is liberals that want to get the Cross out of the way!

This is a fight…Viva Cristo Rey!

An update on Fr. Vassal’s liberal tactic of removing the cross bearer.

I received information from a friend in Post Falls, in which he spoke to Fr. Vassal after one of the Masses there, for about 20-minutes on the subject of why did he (Fr. Vassal) remove the Cross bearer.

He wrote down, in summary, the exchange of their conversation.

The question that was asked of Fr. Vassal, was:  Fr. Vassal, why did you remove the Cross bearer from the Mass.  Fr. Vassal responses follow:

-   It is a Law of the Church.  A Canon Law.  The cross bearer in the rubrics is only for a Bishop.
-   It is in my conscience that I need to remove the “abuse”.
-   The “use” of the cross bearer in procession was actually started in France in revolt to the Bishop in France; from there it went everywhere.
-   (Question)  Well, it is still in France today.  It is still in Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet and other places.
-   Yes, but the priest over there does not want to do it.  I do not think it is a problem.
-   Many people may not understand.  So we will have it on Holy Name Society Sunday; and some big feast days.
-   (Question) If it is “objective” as you say, and it is the Law, then why do you have it sometimes?  Why not get rid of it altogether?
-   I would like to.  But we can do it sometimes in procession.
-   (Question) Did you ask the district superior about removing the Cross bearer?  
-   No. (With a shrug of his shoulders, shaking his head, squinting his eyebrows).  I don’t think that I need to.
-   I do not see a problem.  It is just a small thing.  (Fr. Vassal held his fingers up with a very small gap between his fingers.)
-   (Question) Well isn’t that subjective to do it sometimes?  
-   Well maybe.  But it is just a small thing.
-   If it is “objective”, why isn’t it done in the rest of the district?  It is not removed in the seminary?
-   I don’t know.  (Shrug of shoulders.)
-   (Question) Isn’t it true in the Church, that if there is a Custom already established, not to remove it?  
-   Well, yes, that is true.  But it is a Law; so I need to remove it.  It is still only a little problem.  I do not think that people will mind once they know.
-   (Question) I mind!  And many people in the parish are talking about this.  
-   Why haven’t they come to me and say something?  Then I will need to give a sermon on “rash judgment”.  (It was Fr. Vassal that did not communicate this; and it was Fr. Vassal that caused the confusion; which caused in his view – people having a rash judgment!).  
-   It is just a little problem.  
-   (Question) No, Fr. Vassal, it is a very big problem!
-   Well you are the only one that spoke to me.  Why did you come to me so late to speak of this?  
-   (Answer) Because you have not been here often doing masses; nor, when you were here, you did not come out after mass as you usually do.
-   That is right.  I have not been here much lately.
-   (Question) Fr. Vassal, you did not even announce it from the pulpit that you were going to remove the Cross bearer.  You did not even write it in a newsletter.  You did not say anything about it.  You just did it.  I know you are a foreigner in this country; but in this country when the Novus Ordo came out, the new church also made these changes little by little without telling anyone…and you are doing the same thing.  So yes, it is a big problem!
-   Well maybe it was not prudent to do it without telling anyone.  Maybe when I get back, I will think about it.  But it is just a little thing.  (Shrug of shoulders.)  I do not think it is a problem.
-   (Question) Isn’t it important to teach people and the children about the cross and the importance of it?  There is a boy’s school here.  I know that many of the boys who serve are confused; and do not know what is going on.  Isn’t the Crucifix the standard of our religion; of the Faith; of the Mass.  Isn’t it the standard bearer, like in the earlier days where ever the standard bearer went, it was a message of communication.  To get rid of the Cross bearer, the crucifix, is detrimental to the faith.
-   There is still a cross on the altar.  I do not think it is a problem.
-   (Back and forth…back and forth…each of them saying the same thing.  Neither of them budging.  Fr. Vassal kept looking at his watch; and said at many times that he is trying to find someone.  He needs to go.  Then he left).


Conclusion.  

My friend said that he is going to write a letter to Fr. Rostand, the District Superior, with what took place in their conversation and see if he will do anything about it.  

So yes, Fr. Vassal, to remove the Crucifix of Jesus Christ is a BIG problem!

It is fervent Catholics that adore the Cross; it is liberals that want to get the Cross out of the way!

This is a fight…Viva Cristo Rey!

Actually, Canon Law supports both sides of this argument:

Pro Fr. Vassal:

1) If it is in fact a rubric of the Mass that a processional cross is only to be used in the procession of a bishop, then Post Falls (and almost all other SSPX chapels) have been in violation of the rubrics of the Holy Mass for 2 generations!

2) St. Teresa of Avila said she would rather die than violate a single rubric.

Contra Fr. Vassal:

1) A local custom in effect for 40 years abrogates the prohibition against processional crosses for simple priests.

Judgment:

1) In which locales has there been a processional cross for 40+ years (i.e., since 1973)?

2) Those which have maintained this custom since 1973 may continue to do so.

3) Those which have introduced it after 1973 may not do so without violation of the rubrics of the Holy Mass.

Pretty simple, actually.

PS: I make no judgment on the MOTIVE of Fr. Vassal for having introduced this change.  I only point out the canon law and rubrics in place pertaining to the issue.

there was always a cross bearer at a sung Mass in my chapel, unless they were short a server..... :surprised:

All that said, can anyone find the rubric prohibiting processional crosses in Masses celebrated by simple priests?

I would also like to know about this. Is it in Fortescue? Or one of the French rubric books?

Using custom can be a double-edged sword for it may be used to justify long-standing abuses.

-   It is a Law of the Church.  A Canon Law.  The cross bearer in the rubrics is only for a Bishop.
-   It is in my conscience that I need to remove the “abuse”.
-   The “use” of the cross bearer in procession was actually started in France in revolt to the Bishop in France; from there it went everywhere.
-   (Question)  Well, it is still in France today.  It is still in Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet and other places.
-   
-   (Question) If it is “objective” as you say, and it is the Law, then why do you have it sometimes?  Why not get rid of it altogether?
-   I would like to.  But we can do it sometimes in procession.
-   (Question) Did you ask the district superior about removing the Cross bearer?  
-   No. (With a shrug of his shoulders, shaking his head, squinting his eyebrows).  I don’t think that I need to.
-   If it is “objective”, why isn’t it done in the rest of the district?  It is not removed in the seminary?
-   I don’t know.  (Shrug of shoulders.)
... it is a Law; so I need to remove it.  It is still only a little problem.  I do not think that people will mind once they know.
-   (Question) Fr. Vassal, you did not even announce it from the pulpit that you were going to remove the Cross bearer.  You did not even write it in a newsletter.  You did not say anything about it.  You just did it.  
-   Well maybe it was not prudent to do it without telling anyone.  Maybe when I get back, I will think about it.  But it is just a little thing.  (Shrug of shoulders.)  I do not think it is a problem.

For the sake of argument, let's assume Fr. Vassal is right, and that
1) to have a Cross-bearer is a violation of Canon Law,
2) It is in his conscience that he needs to remove the “abuse”, &
3)  it is “objective”, then:

1) Why has the SSPX done it for over 40 years?
2) Now that someone realized it is an "abuse, and it is an "objective" matter of "conscience" to use it as they have, why doesn't the entire SSPX change it now, across the  board, and announce why they must make the change?  
3) How is something that is an "abuse, an "objective"
matter of "conscience" and a matter of "Canon Law" also at the same time "just a little thing"?    :confused1:

Sorry, these arguments just don't hold water.  And if we had a dollar for every time a change was made in the Novus Ordo, especially early on in the 1970s, we were told "it is just a little thing", we might all be rich.