Sorry for the size of the letters. Didn't know they were going to be so big! Better go watering my plants.

Matthew,

The Feast of Corpus Christi was celebrated in St. Marys with a Solemn High Mass and Procession on the actual Feastday, the last Thursday in May.  Because it was celebrated on the actual Feastday, it could not be translated to Sunday then. (Celebrating it on Sunday is traditionally only permitted if it is a grave inconvenience to celebrate it on the Thursday, but it wasn't, so we didn't.)

The decision here on Sunday, June 2, was whether to celebrate the X Sunday after Pentecost, or the Dedication of the Cathedral in our diocese.  Traditionally, the later is a First Class Feastday which "trumps" the regular Sunday Mass when they fall on the same day, so that is simply what the priests in St. Marys followed...the traditional way of doing things.

Please correct the error posted on your site, since I have no login there.

Thank you,
L.

Thanks for the clarification "L".  However, this was NOT the reason that was given on the Angelus Blog. Instead, the impression was given that it was done to show unity with the local Bishop.  

Where did that letter of "L" come from?

Who is "L"?  A SSPX priest?

If "L" wants some credibility over what was printed in the "official" SSPX Angelus Blog stating differently, then "L" will need to provide some credence, less "L" would be trying to inject a different "narration" to cover up events?

That would be fair from "L", would it not?

I received a PM regarding this and SSPX encouraging laity to attend the Novus Ordo. Are their links or articles on Cath Info? At the moment, I don't intend to spend more time on direction of the SSPX.

Is there some information that could be posted.? I really don't have the time or interest in the happenings of the SSPX.

A thread was already started here:

Novus Ordo Watch: in the SSPX

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Novus-Ordo-Watch-in-the-SSPX

.

This appears to be evidence that the parish in St. Mary's is giving their
approval to liturgical accommodations in the direction of unity with the
local diocese.  

It puts the appearance of accord with the local bishop above the
practice of Tradition.  

The local cathedral is a NovusOrdo cathedral where the Newmass is the
so-called ordinary rite.  Therefore this accommodation bows with
homage to the Newmass, Newchurch, Newbishop and Newsacraments.

There is no need to change the Mass for the Sunday to recognize the
jurisdiction of the local bishop, or to pray for him in the Mass.  And if
this change is acceptable for the SSPX practice, then what other
changes would likewise be acceptable?  

Why stop with this change?  If the SSPX parish wants to prove its
loyalty and "unity" with the local diocese, why not just stop having all
these Sundays after Pentecost and just go with the flow, making them
all Sundays in Ordinary Time in a 3-year cycle with all new "readings?"

If dropping the Sunday within the Octave of Corpus Christi is okay
because it shows 'unity' with the diocese, then why should anyone be
surprised if the next shoe to fall will be moving Christ the King to the
end of November where it would displace the 24th and Last Sunday
after Pentecost?  I mean, nobody in the diocese Newmasses will be
reading Matt. xxiv that day in NovusOrdoland, so why should the
Society parish read it if that makes it appear to be not in "unity" with
the diocese?  

Isn't the principle established already that 'unity' with the diocese
is more important than the Mass of the liturgical calendar?  

I read the linked article and it certainly seems like Mark Riddle has no
qualms about anything NovusOrdo.  He's a full-blown Accordista at
best, and maybe a dyed-in-the-wool Novordien himself, for all you can
tell by his words.  Even if he doesn't say so, he could be presuming
anyone opposed to this liturgical accommodation must be schismatic
or sedevacantist.  And he's right there on the Angelus website in all
its glory. He works for the Angelus, he says.


Even if it has gone to bi-monthly issues, the Angelus can still
dish out the damage.



The quote from Ekim (whoever "L" is isn't clear - but it's obviously
someone who is involved in planning the Mass -- hey, maybe he
(or she?) is a liturgy minister who dreams up novelties? -that would
be right in accord with the popular trend and showing 'unity' with the
diocese!) has the following:

"The decision here on Sunday, June 2, was whether to celebrate
the X Sunday after Pentecost, or the Dedication of the Cathedral
in our diocese."  

Say that again?  The "X" Sunday after Pentecost?  Pinch me if I'm
not 'with-it', but it's the Second Sunday after Pentecost, not the "X"
Sunday. Or, is this guy not sure what's up because he's used to
thinking in terms of how many Sundays in Ordinary Time it is?  Don't
be surprised.  I have a sneaking suspicion that he is just that and
doesn't care which Sunday after Pentecost it is, because that's now
obsolete and he's not looking back.  He's not "turning back the clock."

We've been through this all before.  These people are not acting out
of ignorance.  This is not the first time around the block.  




Like Fr. Pfeiffer says, the ExSPX is dead.  It's a chicken running around
with it's head chopped off, bumping into hay bales and barn doors.

I was there for that Mass that day. I was completely confused as to why they would switch things up on such an important liturgical day.

The fact that you were there and yet you were completely confused
adds weight to the impression that they did not explain what they
were doing, because if they had explained it so as to be understood,
then the people who were there (like you!) would have known their
reason(s) and they would not be confused.  

Now, there could be mitigating circuмstances, such as perhaps you
had arrived just after someone made an announcement from the pulpit
before Mass, and you had not somehow managed to speak to anyone
who had been there to hear that, because you had stayed after Mass
to pray your thanksgiving and by the time you got up to leave, all
those who had known the answer you sought had already gone away.

Or whatever.  

But in all likelihood, the more probable state of affairs is, that there
had been no attempt to explain what the reason was for changing the
Mass from what the calendar indicates (depending, of course, on
which calendar is being used!) to this dedication of the cathedral
liturgy.  

Which reminds me, you can be really sure that the diocese cathedral
was not using the prayers for Mass of the Common of the Dedication
of a Church that is found in the 1962 Missal of John XXIII.

Consequently, how can this "L" or the SSPX representative claim
that this "SWITCH" was really any act of 'unity' with the local
diocese?  To be a true act of 'unity' it should be using the same
liturgy that the diocese is using for the occasion - the NovusOrdo
liturgy, for otherwise, it should be seen as an act of 'rebellion'
or 'dissidence'.