Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on November 05, 2022, 01:22:38 PM
-
Come on guys, this video came out a day or two ago! Who's going to post it?
-
Came out where? Never saw it.
-
A Dilwyn seminary livestream four days ago shows an altar:
https://youtu.be/-lcxDMGIbgE
-
Came out where? Never saw it.
Ditto.
-
(https://www.farmvilleherald.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/25/2022/05/STAS-aerial-view_WEB.jpg?w=622)
Please tell me that's not a swimming pool in the courtyard there. :facepalm:
We just need some seminarians draped seductively over a Mercedes Benz and some nuns in bikinis joining the seminarians for a pool party, and the Neo-SSPX will be complete. Of course, maybe it's a test ... to see which seminarians are more interested in seminarians in speedos than in female wearing bikinis.
They spent $50 million on this? Winona was just as nicer -- IMO nicer, in its own way -- and there was ample room to expand, and could have been for about $1 million tops. Winona had lots of nice trees ... this thing looks like an urban jungle in the middle of an open farm field.
-
(https://storage.googleapis.com/hippostcard/p/0e13df8dd3e04a1c6ae7eb6f1f8d6fc2.jpg)
(https://stas.org/sites/sspx/files/styles/dici_image_full_width/public/news/winona.jpg?itok=kO9uCJm0)
(https://sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/styles/dici_image_full_width/public/dsc_0494.jpg?itok=irHz39QZ)
I didn't care for that Crucifix + St. Dominic in the main chapel there, but that too could have easily been rectified.
-
(https://www.farmvilleherald.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/25/2022/05/STAS-aerial-view_WEB.jpg?w=622)
Please tell me that's not a swimming pool in the courtyard there. :facepalm:
We just need some seminarians draped seductively over a Mercedes Benz and some nuns in bikinis joining the seminarians for a pool party, and the Neo-SSPX will be complete. Of course, maybe it's a test ... to see which seminarians are more interested in seminarians in speedos than in female wearing bikinis.
They spent $50 million on this? Winona was just as nicer -- IMO nicer, in its own way -- and there was ample room to expand, and could have been for about $1 million tops. Winona had lots of nice trees ... this thing looks like an urban jungle in the middle of an open farm field.
Please modify your personal posting filter. This is a 100% garbage post. It has nothing to do with a table vs altar, you know what that "swimming pool" is by now or you haven't been paying attention, and we don't need any more bad images trying to get in our minds than what that world already sends us. Things don't always turn out as people hope, and modern architecture is already at a disadvantage to looking as nice as the older stuff, that goes without saying. It's like you didn't even think when you posted this brain fart. I'm not trying to be rude, but we will have to give an account for every word. I'm of to a bad start, but I don't want others to carelessly continue doing the same.
-
Please modify your personal posting filter. This is a 100% garbage post. It has nothing to do with a table vs altar, you know what that "swimming pool" is by now or you haven't been paying attention, and we don't need any more bad images trying to get in our minds than what that world already sends us. Things don't always turn out as people hope, and modern architecture is already at a disadvantage to looking as nice as the older stuff, that goes without saying. It's like you didn't even think when you posted this brain fart. I'm not trying to be rude, but we will have to give an account for every word. I'm of to a bad start, but I don't want others to carelessly continue doing the same.
No, I thought very clearly about it. This is the neo-SSPX trend, moving more and more toward immodestry, materialism, compromising the faith, and, yes, Modernistic chapel architecture. There are a few recent ones that they spent inordinate amounts of money on that look like they could have been built by any Novus Ordo bishop. Then, to spend $50 million on this abomination when a $1 million expansion at Winona would have been more than adequate, while ripping off collection baskets from chapels and embezzling them towards these building projects, from trying to blackmail $250,000 out of my Independent priest here (or otherwise they'll refuse to serve his chapel after he dies ... which there's a 100% chance they'll just sell anyway) ... one could go on for hours about the neo-SSPX worldliness, waste, Modernism, theft, blackmail, etc.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/st-mary's-modesty/msg661827/#msg661827
This is a great message to send about what the seminary and seminarians are all about these days ...
(https://stas.org/sites/sspx/files/styles/dici_image_full_width/public/US-STAS%20new%20seminary/MED-Gallery/mercedes_92_1.jpg?itok=jS77Lw8l)
-
A Dilwyn seminary livestream four days ago shows an altar:
https://youtu.be/-lcxDMGIbgE
I slid through the video and saw no table! I saw only an altar.
-
Sorry about the mix-up -- I meant the OTHER media-worthy showpiece of the SSPX in the United States: the new Immaculata chapel in St. Mary's, KS.
Apparently the architect's work just went public, in a Youtube video in the last few days.
The new Seminary chapel is all finished and done, right? I guess I haven't seen it yet, so it's in the same category in my mind (new, under development, unfinished).
Anyone have the video?
-
Sorry about the mix-up -- I meant the OTHER media-worthy showpiece of the SSPX in the United States: the new Immaculata chapel in St. Mary's, KS.
Apparently the architect's work just went public, in a Youtube video in the last few days.
The new Seminary chapel is all finished and done, right? I guess I haven't seen it yet, so it's in the same category in my mind (new, under development, unfinished).
Anyone have the video?
This one?
https://youtu.be/0M8okJLpN9U
-
https://www.facebook.com/ImmaculataChurch/videos/517968293513832
yes- on FB- looks like a table with a Tabernacle- a beautiful table. Maybe they are preparing for the inevitable.
-
Why is it so hard to even get an actual altar? Not hard at all- that’s the thing.
How stupid and obvious can one be?
-
They stuck with the bare minimum. NO THRONE above the tabernacle for exposition of the Blessed Sacrament.
All that money for marble but only bronze instead of gold inside the tabernacle.
Altars with 20 foot high reridos were also free standing (with storage in the back of the altars for candlesticks, vases etc) And they had Thrones.
And the bells have already been installed? Wasn't there supposed to be a ceremony when the church is completed when the Bishop washes and blesses the bells with Holy Oil and names them?
Even the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart at the center of the altar looks modern. Don't like white hearts. I could have been a beautiful red, three dimensional inlay.
Don't like it at all.
-
"A real change in the contemporary perception of the purpose of the Mass and the Eucharist will occur only when the table altars are removed and Mass is again celebrated at the high altar..."
-----Msgr. Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, 1993, p.175
-
Michael Davies:
"Once these new sacramental rites had become the habit of the English people, the substance of the doctrinal reformation, victorious now in northern Europe, would have transformed England also. All but insensibly, as the years went by, the beliefs enshrined in the old, and now disused, rites, and kept alive by these rites in men's minds and affections, would disappear-----without the need of any systematic missionary effort to preach them down. [Hughes, op. cit., p. 111.]
Monsignor Hughes is referring here to a principle fundamental to every form of liturgy: Lex orandi, lex credendi-----"The law of prayer is the law of belief." This means that the manner in which people pray will determine what they believe. As Msgr. Hughes has explained, when the traditional Latin liturgical rites were replaced by new vernacular services, when the altars were replaced by tables, and when the celebrant turned to face the people, then almost imperceptibly, as the years passed by, the people, who were praying as Protestants, began to believe as Protestants."
http://catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/sanctuary.htm
-
On the one hand, it is certainly true that many ancient, post-persecution (i.e., Constantine) churches continued to feature altars without reredos (e.g., the Benedictine abbey in Fontgambault; the Dominicain couvent in Avrille built in the 11th century, etc.). Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority (not all) of these churches predated the Protestant heresies regarding the Mass, and the response of the Baroque Church in the face of the Pretestant challenge was to double-down with even more magnificent altars complimented by reredos, baldacchinos, protected by rood screens, etc.
The differentiation between protestant and Catholic worship could be known at a glance from the distinct form of the altar or the table.
Now in the post-conciliar crisis, it is very strange that the FSSPX should begin blurring that distinction and inviting criticism by justifying a return to the "table altar," particularly at a time when the Protestant errors on the Mass have resurfaced within the Church, and at a time when many are worried about the consequences for the Fraternity in preparation for its ralliement to modernist Rome.
Abbe Rutledge seems to be aware of the disturbance this is causing (he begs you to listen to his entire explanation, which is at times archeologistic, just as in the Novus Ordo), and even if the choice in the altar style is mere poor taste and/or imprudence -a verdict which is still to be determined- did he and FSSPX leadership really expect it would pass without a whimper, even amongst branded faithful, particularly when other recent Fraternity church building projects incorporate the same modernist elements (e.g., the table altar in the remodeled chapel in Econe; the monstrosity in Madrid which looks like an LSD-induced dream, etc.)?
-
Father's deflection strategy of 'listen to everything before posting your comments' would suggest they've been receiving flak about it.
The seminary cost basically 50 million. How many seminarians can it house and how many seminarians are there? With 79 worldwide, it seems the new building should keep them going for a while.
So... for roughly 100 million there's a massive church, for one parish, with an altar people are unhappy with, and an essentially empty seminary that in appearance closely resembles a Maximum-Security State Penitentiary? Is that kinda right?
-
(https://storage.googleapis.com/hippostcard/p/0e13df8dd3e04a1c6ae7eb6f1f8d6fc2.jpg)
(https://stas.org/sites/sspx/files/styles/dici_image_full_width/public/news/winona.jpg?itok=kO9uCJm0)
(https://sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/styles/dici_image_full_width/public/dsc_0494.jpg?itok=irHz39QZ)
I didn't care for that Crucifix + St. Dominic in the main chapel there, but that too could have easily been rectified.
Thanks for the beautiful images.
Anyone know why the magnificent full body size framed images of the Shroud of Turin were left hanging in the basement classroom/lecture hall and in the basement corridor at Winona when they moved the seminary to Virginia? They had been ordered from https://www.shroud.com/obtain.htm#backlit (https://www.shroud.com/obtain.htm#backlit) and from what I had been told years ago Br. Marcel had constructed the frames for them.
-
Yeah I'm not a fan of the new Immaculata altar that they're building. Yeah of course maybe that type of altar was more common in the 500s and 600s, but the Church under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, has improved her altars. The masses that were offered before the year 100 AD were offered on wooden tables in homes, should we go back to wooden tables now, just because it's old? Free standing altars can be beautiful. The picture attached is a free standing altar in an ICKSP church in Ireland.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/c0zwOXU.jpg)
-
Not a fan of the detached altar either. They are putting so much money into this church and I think it was a great opportunity to build an altar unlike any of the modern altars built since Vatican II but yet they decided to go with this one.
-
Crypto-modernist are worse than thieving jews.
-
They stuck with the bare minimum. NO THRONE above the tabernacle for exposition of the Blessed Sacrament.
All that money for marble but only bronze instead of gold inside the tabernacle.
Altars with 20 foot high reridos were also free standing (with storage in the back of the altars for candlesticks, vases etc) And they had Thrones.
And the bells have already been installed? Wasn't there supposed to be a ceremony when the church is completed when the Bishop washes and blesses the bells with Holy Oil and names them?
Even the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart at the center of the altar looks modern. Don't like white hearts. I could have been a beautiful red, three dimensional inlay.
Don't like it at all.
I know I'm going to receive flak from most people here but the new Immaculata sanctuary is actually better looking compared to the seminary sanctuary of La Reja in terms of proportion and color combination.
-
At three minutes and fifty seconds, the narrator tells us that they have a free-standing altar because that was the tradition in the Church until around the eighth century.
So they are just being traditional using a Cramner's Table.
-
Since right now, we just have a computer rendering, I want to see the finished product before making any judgements. Things can and will change before then
-
The Papal Altar at St. Peter's Basilica, consecrated by Pope Clement VIII on June 5, 1594.
(https://i.imgur.com/pY2bE46.jpg)
-
There is definitely nothing wrong with a free-standing altar per se. However, it is very likely imprudent in this situation and indicative of the leanings of the SSPX.
I would definitely have preferred a grand altar to this. It looks too much like a table and it was a massive wasted opportunity.
Regarding the exorbitant amount of money the SSPX is wasting. It hurts to see because my local SSPX Mass is in a room which has no air once it gets filled.
To spend $50 million on anything while faithful all around the world have Masses in hotels and chairs is disgraceful.
-
There is definitely nothing wrong with a free-standing altar per se. However, it is very likely imprudent in this situation and indicative of the leanings of the SSPX.
I would definitely have preferred a grand altar to this. It looks too much like a table and it was a massive wasted opportunity.
Regarding the exorbitant amount of money the SSPX is wasting. It hurts to see because my local SSPX Mass is in a room which has no air once it gets filled.
To spend $50 million on anything while faithful all around the world have Masses in hotels and chairs is disgraceful.
Here are the two big issues I have with their big expenditures:
1) As you said, lots of chapels could use upgrades across the country. What's worse is that there's been a history of SSPX diverting funds collected by people at chapels to their other projects, i.e. embezzling. I know of several cases where the people at a chapel had major fundraising for a new church facility, but where the money evaporated and disappeared, and where decades later they still had no church after having raised hundreds of thousands, but then had to re-start their efforts. SSPX have fine print everywhere that they own the chapels and can do what they want with the money, but this still is IMO morally THEFT, as the people had donated and raised the money for a specific purpose, and had slaved away in some cases for years at fund raisers, etc. Alternatively, there are many areas where the money could be used to establish a Traditional Catholic presence.
2) Until the emergence of neo-SSPX, the Traditionalist concept was that this Crisis is temporary, and when it's over all those Catholic churches, seminaries, school buildings held by he Conciliars would be returned to Catholic use. Each Catholic city has dozens upon dozens of churches that could not be rebuilt today for any price (many still intact due to their historical significance but with a Luther table placed in front of the main altar). Each Catholic diocese has a very nice seminary facility. This speaks to the fact that SSPX view this as a "New Normal" where the SSPX will be its own little order/group within the Conciliar Church and sees this as a parmanent arrangement.
This isn't about the Glory of God, but about someone's ego.
I also suspect that they started the seminary with the notion that once they got regularized, the seminarians would just start flocking to them in droves.
-
There is definitely nothing wrong with a free-standing altar per se. However, it is very likely imprudent in this situation and indicative of the leanings of the SSPX.
I would definitely have preferred a grand altar to this. It looks too much like a table and it was a massive wasted opportunity.
Regarding the exorbitant amount of money the SSPX is wasting. It hurts to see because my local SSPX Mass is in a room which has no air once it gets filled.
To spend $50 million on anything while faithful all around the world have Masses in hotels and chairs is disgraceful.
Many (the vast number) of the faithful have no Mass to attend and never receive the sacraments. Basically the grandeur is to serve themselves. It does not serve the best spiritual welfare of the faithful. Mission is a foreign concept.
-
Here's what they built (this past couple years) in the Cleveland-Akron area (St. Peregrine's) --
Looks like a cross between Prot and Novus Ordo.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRHHxFCA52rHFufpQSBtuMW-JFdRBKxB67-WKi_2M1Qb7p4I1KFccyGD4-GIWi9TNlmI98&usqp=CAU)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRBSqHjscSx55vzt7HrCFgb4ZKl23b1411I70jHFj1BrJdF4dqTUXEak8XSFOZ3-Nm-5sw&usqp=CAU)
and here after they added a Resurrexifix above the altar --
(https://i.ibb.co/N6pDXTH/pergrine.jpg)
-
Here's what they built (this past couple years) in the Cleveland-Akron area (St. Peregrine's) --
Looks like a cross between Prot and Novus Ordo.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRHHxFCA52rHFufpQSBtuMW-JFdRBKxB67-WKi_2M1Qb7p4I1KFccyGD4-GIWi9TNlmI98&usqp=CAU)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRBSqHjscSx55vzt7HrCFgb4ZKl23b1411I70jHFj1BrJdF4dqTUXEak8XSFOZ3-Nm-5sw&usqp=CAU)
and here after they added a Resurrexifix above the altar --
(https://i.ibb.co/N6pDXTH/pergrine.jpg)
Yikes.
A couple of paintings could do a whole lot of good. Too bad it all went into the five star hotel, I mean, errr, seminary.
-
Yikes.
A couple of paintings could do a whole lot of good. Too bad it all went into the five star hotel, I mean, errr, seminary.
Right. Obviously it could be improved some with Catholic art work, but the design / structure of the sanctuary, and the small windows (without stained glass). Structure looks grand and big from the outside, but on the inside it fails to edify. They could have made a much lower ceiling (unecessary to be that high) and could have spent the money on making it look more Catholic and to be more edifying. It feels like you're going to Mass inside a High School gym.
-
Right. Obviously it could be improved some with Catholic art work, but the design / structure of the sanctuary, and the small windows (without stained glass). Structure looks grand and big from the outside, but on the inside it fails to edify. They could have made a much lower ceiling (unecessary to be that high) and could have spent the money on making it look more Catholic and to be more edifying. It feels like you're going to Mass inside a High School gym.
Yeah, it's bad, but it could definitely look good if it got a major facelift.
-
Did the SSPX build that church or purchase it as a building? If purchased, its new 'decor' is devoid of anything tasteful, and it hardly raises the mind to God. If it was built, then it's just another 'nail in the coffin' for anyone who would still think the SSPX is remotely 'hardline'.
-
Isn't there a stipulation that a crucifix must display Christ suffering and not the emerging/resurrected Christ? Not sure where I read or heard that but somehow picked it up along the way.
-
Here's what they built (this past couple years) in the Cleveland-Akron area (St. Peregrine's) --
Looks like a cross between Prot and Novus Ordo.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRHHxFCA52rHFufpQSBtuMW-JFdRBKxB67-WKi_2M1Qb7p4I1KFccyGD4-GIWi9TNlmI98&usqp=CAU)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRBSqHjscSx55vzt7HrCFgb4ZKl23b1411I70jHFj1BrJdF4dqTUXEak8XSFOZ3-Nm-5sw&usqp=CAU)
and here after they added a Resurrexifix above the altar --
(https://i.ibb.co/N6pDXTH/pergrine.jpg)
Are you sure that is a Resurrectix? It's too blurry for me to tell for sure.
-
Also, is that another free-standing altar? Don't want to jump the gun so just checking if anyone knows for sure. :fryingpan:
-
Many (the vast number) of the faithful have no Mass to attend and never receive the sacraments. Basically the grandeur is to serve themselves. It does not serve the best spiritual welfare of the faithful. Mission is a foreign concept.
The SSPX Politburo knew exactly what they were doing. The led the faithful to believe they were going to build a Church exemplifying traditional Catholic worship and then they changed the centerpiece to be open to their modernist agenda.
Typical bait & switch...
(Ha. ha you dumb goyim suckers! :laugh1:)
-
Are you sure that is a Resurrectix? It's too blurry for me to tell for sure.
Well, kindof. It's a "Christ the King" crucifix. I think we had a discussion about it here before with a better picture. But I was being a bit sarcastic, as the Novus Ordo are famous for their Resurrexifixes.
-
Also, is that another free-standing altar? Don't want to jump the gun so just checking if anyone knows for sure. :fryingpan:
Yes, this one is most certainly a free-standing altar. In the last picture above, you can see the rear-right (from our perspective) leg of the balcachin (ciborium / canopy) behind the right edge of the altar.
-
Did the SSPX build that church or purchase it as a building? If purchased, its new 'decor' is devoid of anything tasteful, and it hardly raises the mind to God. If it was built, then it's just another 'nail in the coffin' for anyone who would still think the SSPX is remotely 'hardline'.
That one at St. Peregrine, it was built by SSPX from scratch. I wouldn't criticize it too much if it was just a purchase project. I've seen worse purchases, but for those you take the best you can get for what you can afford.
-
Pics of Cleveland/Akron I did not see stations of the cross?
-
Here are the two big issues I have with their big expenditures:
1) As you said, lots of chapels could use upgrades across the country. What's worse is that there's been a history of SSPX diverting funds collected by people at chapels to their other projects, i.e. embezzling. I know of several cases where the people at a chapel had major fundraising for a new church facility, but where the money evaporated and disappeared, and where decades later they still had no church after having raised hundreds of thousands, but then had to re-start their efforts. SSPX have fine print everywhere that they own the chapels and can do what they want with the money, but this still is IMO morally THEFT, as the people had donated and raised the money for a specific purpose, and had slaved away in some cases for years at fund raisers, etc. Alternatively, there are many areas where the money could be used to establish a Traditional Catholic presence.
That's a serious accusation. Can you name the particular chapel and instance? If there's any proof, this ought to be reported. If not, it is slanderous.
-
This chapel in Spain is modern, ugly and luciferian. It doesn’t say traditional Catholic to me.
https://tinyurl.com/2bcc48mf
(https://i.imgur.com/wPwCfUL.jpg)
-
Most of these modern churches being built aren’t environmentally friendly either.
Many are over the top.
Nothing like our churches of the past made of wood or stone: holy, simple, modest and beautiful.
(https://i.imgur.com/kYisZn8.png)
-
Here's what they built (this past couple years) in the Cleveland-Akron area (St. Peregrine's) --
Looks like a cross between Prot and Novus Ordo.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRHHxFCA52rHFufpQSBtuMW-JFdRBKxB67-WKi_2M1Qb7p4I1KFccyGD4-GIWi9TNlmI98&usqp=CAU)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRBSqHjscSx55vzt7HrCFgb4ZKl23b1411I70jHFj1BrJdF4dqTUXEak8XSFOZ3-Nm-5sw&usqp=CAU)
and here after they added a Resurrexifix above the altar --
(https://i.ibb.co/N6pDXTH/pergrine.jpg)
Where are the stations of the cross???
-
Most of these modern churches being built aren’t environmentally friendly either.
Many are over the top.
Nothing like our churches of the past made of wood or stone: holy, simple, modest and beautiful.
(https://i.imgur.com/kYisZn8.png)
Wooden churches are not a good idea.
-
That's a serious accusation. Can you name the particular chapel and instance? If there's any proof, this ought to be reported. If not, it is slanderous.
I know of people who claimed that this happened especially to their chapels in Florida...
They raised a lot of money for a chapel in their location and the SSPX used the money to build a chapel on the other side of FL instead of where the people were who raised the money. At least I think that is how the story went.
-
Pictures of St. Peregrine's from Facebook:
Including better view of altar and "resurrecifix".
-
Pics of Cleveland/Akron I did not see stations of the cross?
I’ll cut them some slack there as they have not finished decorating yet due to a funds shortage ... and there’s definitely enough bare space in the wall for them.
-
In my opinion... If they are going to have a "free-standing" altar it should at least have the three altar shelf's on it. This is where the candles and flowers are usually placed for a high Mass. Usually an altar with tiers on it helped to distinguish between an altar for a high Mass or a low Mass. Traditional chapels often had more simple side altars for several priests to offer their morning low Masses at the same time and the high altar was for the sung Masses.
The priest in the video mentioned that they were trying to copy Saint Peter's in Rome. I find interesting that apparently the altar over St. Peter's tomb was apparently originally a "ciborium" used for exposing the blessed Sacrament. It was basically like a super large tabernacle. And another important thing to remember is that only the Pope or one standing in his place for special ceremonies was allowed to offer Mass on this altar. Usually the preferred location for Mass in Saint Peter's was the High Altar under the Chair of Saint Peter.
I will try and include some pictures in a few separate posts.
-
I know of people who claimed that this happened especially to their chapels in Florida...
They raised a lot of money for a chapel in their location and the SSPX used the money to build a chapel on the other side of FL instead of where the people were who raised the money. At least I think that is how the story went.
Which particular chapel?
-
Pope Pius X Offering Mass over St. Peter's Tomb
-
Pontifical High Mass of Pope Pius X at the Altar of St. Peter's Chair (consecrating French bishops).
-
Several pictures I found while looking for the others...
-
A couple more...
-
That's a serious accusation. Can you name the particular chapel and instance? If there's any proof, this ought to be reported. If not, it is slanderous.
It’s been adequately dealt with here before, so I chose not to go into it again. I have direct knowledge of one such situation, and two others chimed attesting to the same thing going on in others. It’s well docuмented that SSPX exert total financial control over any given parish. In the case I am familiar with, I cannot say exactly WHAT happened to the money, only that the chapel had several hundred thousand (close to half a million) collected 20 years ago that evaporated. I personally donated $1,000 before I got suspicious. They started from scratch just about 2-3 years ago and thus have an unfinished chapel (with bare white walls: HINT) and significant debt. In fact, they had plans drawn up 20 years ago that were much nicer.
-
https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=69205.0;attach=18787;image
Pope Pius XII - Mediator Dei
62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.
-
https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=69205.0;attach=18787;image
Pope Pius XII - Mediator Dei
62. (...) But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; (...) were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; (...)
I'm not sure how the FSSPX can evade or justify its choice of a tableform altar, in light of this passage.
Regarding the link showing the modernist crucifix, is this also at the new Immaculata Church in St. Mary's? If so, it too would seem unjustifiable in light of the same Mediator Dei.
I would love to hear their response to this syllogism:
Major: They are straying from the straight path who wish to restore tableform altars, or design crucifixs without any sign of Our Lord's passion;
Minor: But the FSSPX is using tableform altars and crucifixs showing no trace of Our Lord's sufferings.
Conclusion: Theerefore, the FSSPX is straying from the straight path.
-
This chapel in Spain is modern, ugly and luciferian. It doesn’t say traditional Catholic to me.
https://tinyurl.com/2bcc48mf
(https://i.imgur.com/wPwCfUL.jpg)
I remember being horrified when I saw this. Now, unfortunately, I just conclude 'what a joke'. Those statues look no less modernist that the 'crucifix' outside the concrete Fatima banjo chapel.
-
“I am writing this to serve as a lesson for everyone. The day that the FSSPX abandons the spirit and rules of its Founder, it will be lost. Furthermore, all our brothers who, in the future, allow themselves to judge and condemn the Founder and his principles, will show no hesitation in eventually taking away from the Society the Traditional Teaching of the Church and the Mass instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ.”
-Abbe Ludovic Barrielle (1982)
-
In my opinion... If they are going to have a "free-standing" altar it should at least have the three altar shelf's on it. This is where the candles and flowers are usually placed for a high Mass. Usually an altar with tiers on it helped to distinguish between an altar for a high Mass or a low Mass. Traditional chapels often had more simple side altars for several priests to offer their morning low Masses at the same time and the high altar was for the sung Masses.
To my knowledge there is no such distinction for high Mass or low Mass. I stand to be corrected.
-
It’s been adequately dealt with here before, so I chose not to go into it again. I have direct knowledge of one such situation, and two others chimed attesting to the same thing going on in others. It’s well docuмented that SSPX exert total financial control over any given parish. In the case I am familiar with, I cannot say exactly WHAT happened to the money, only that the chapel had several hundred thousand (close to half a million) collected 20 years ago that evaporated. I personally donated $1,000 before I got suspicious. They started from scratch just about 2-3 years ago and thus have an unfinished chapel (with bare white walls: HINT) and significant debt. In fact, they had plans drawn up 20 years ago that were much nicer.
I am interested to find out the truth behind this. Please point me to the previous thread if it has been dealt with here before.
-
To my knowledge there is no such distinction for high Mass or low Mass. I stand to be corrected.
Irrelevant. This excerpt from Mediator Dei ends the whole conversation:
"62. ...Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform..."
It remains only for the Fraternity to humble itself, and resume sentire cuм ecclesia.
-
I'm not sure how the FSSPX can evade or justify its choice of a tableform altar, in light of this passage.
Regarding the link showing the modernist crucifix, is this also at the new Immaculata Church in St. Mary's? If so, it too would seem unjustifiable in light of the same Mediator Dei.
I would love to hear their response to this syllogism:
Major: They are straying from the straight path who wish to restore tableform altars, or design crucifixs without any sign of Our Lord's passion;
Minor: But the FSSPX is using tableform altars and crucifixs showing no trace of Our Lord's sufferings.
Conclusion: Theerefore, the FSSPX is straying from the straight path.
The computer generated images of the interior shows this for the sanctuary of the Immaculata. As it is not completed at this point of time, it remains to be seen how close it will be to this image.
(https://i.imgur.com/EzKQzxB.jpg)
-
Irrelevant. This excerpt from Mediator Dei ends the whole conversation:
"62. ...Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform..."
It remains only for the Fraternity to humble itself, and resume sentire cuм ecclesia.
But that altar doesn't look like a primitive tableform. A primitive table altar will be like these pictures.
(https://i.imgur.com/4hRzwOE.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/nSJxNbz.png)
https://www.liturgicalartsjournal.com/2021/11/the-history-and-forms-of-christian.html
-
The computer generated images of the interior shows this for the sanctuary of the Immaculata. As it is not completed at this point of time, it remains to be seen how close it will be to this image.
(https://i.imgur.com/EzKQzxB.jpg)
Is your argument that if they spruce up the tableform altar, it thereby ceases to be a tableform altar?
-
But that altar doesn't look like a primitive tableform. A primitive table altar will be like these pictures.
(https://i.imgur.com/4hRzwOE.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/nSJxNbz.png)
https://www.liturgicalartsjournal.com/2021/11/the-history-and-forms-of-christian.html
How is the altar proposed at the Immaculate any differnt than the pics you have posted (particularly the one in the middle, which looks to be precisely what is going to be installed)?
-
This chapel in Spain is modern, ugly and luciferian. It doesn’t say traditional Catholic to me.
https://tinyurl.com/2bcc48mf
(https://i.imgur.com/wPwCfUL.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/aZ1NSao.png)
It seems there is another story to this hideous Madrid chapel exterior. If it was a donated pharmacy plot and opposition from neighbors and bureaucratic red tape involved, that would probably explain things, but I agree it should be rectified.
-
How is the altar proposed at the Immaculate any differnt than the pics you have posted (particularly the one in the middle, which looks to be precisely what is going to be installed)?
:facepalm:
(https://i.imgur.com/hrD7jVI.png)
High altar at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception
(https://i.imgur.com/SRHso1b.png)
High altar at Westminster Cathedral
(https://i.imgur.com/oCjun7S.png)
High altar at St. Patrick's Cathedral
-
:facepalm:
(https://i.imgur.com/hrD7jVI.png)
High altar at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception
(https://i.imgur.com/SRHso1b.png)
High altar at Westminster Cathedral
(https://i.imgur.com/oCjun7S.png)
High altar at St. Patrick's Cathedral
How are any of those diferent than the tableform altars you posted in this picture (particularly the one in the center below)?
(https://i.imgur.com/qrzel9d.png)
-
The problem with the SSPX in these matters is not that there are different legitimate tastes in liturgical style (Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance, Baroque, Neoclassical), but that they create wholly modern designs under the guise of tradition and pretend that this innovation is a legitimate taste rooted in history. We often call liberal, heterodox Catholics "cafeteria Catholics"; with good reason, many of the SSPX leadership reveal themselves to be "cafeteria Traditionalists." (Pius XII in Mediator Dei condemned this as the error of antiquarianism). This altar is a perfect example of this picking and choosing.
The SSPX time and again has shown an uncritical acceptance of the principles of the Liturgical Movement, the same movement that, when left unchecked, led us straight into the Novus Ordo. The priests in Europe tend to be better rounded since they are still surrounded by ancient churches that have the full variety of styles.
The problem isn't so much the altar, which Father correctly notes is the normal form found in the ancient Roman basilicas. It is commendable that we make our Roman churches look Roman. People here are focused so much on the shape, look, and placement of the altar, but they do not realize that these are not so much the core of the issue.
Instead Father neglects a very important element that always accompanies the altar in those same basilicas: the baldacchino (or ciborium). He even makes it seem that the baldachin is not a traditional element of Roman altar design when he says at 3:45: "The free-standing altar was the norm for Catholic Churches until about the 8th century when other elements of altar design came in, and we saw at that time some more vertical elements being attached to the back of the altar..."
No, in fact as soon as the Christians moved from the catacombs to the newly consecrated Roman temples and newly built Catholic churches, they constructed the ciborium over the high altar, either with solid materials or precious cloth or both. This altar was placed over the tomb of a martyr and therefore elevated in a special manner. This was one of the earliest, uniquely Catholic developments to Roman sacred architecture. Its purpose was obvious: to draw attention to the most sacred part of the church, to bestow an amazing dignity and prominence to the altar, and to provide a cover fitting of royalty to the Holy Sacrifice and Blessed Sacrament.
St Germanus stated this explicitly in the 700s: The ciborium represents the place of crucifixion, the burial, and the resurrection of Christ. It corresponds to the ark of the covenant and the Holy of Holies.
But when the Liturgical Movement did away with the baldachin as a "superfluous" element of the altar (although some in the movement attempted to revive the element as important), what did the Novus Ordo discover? The altar lost its vertical dimension! The loss of visual verticality simultaneously accompanied the flattening of its theology, from the vertical to the horizontal. This distorted the altar into a mere table, architecturally and theologically.
Yet one finds in the most prestigious of even the Novus Ordo churches and in newer projects designed by those great classical-revival architects, such as Duncan Stroik, the return of the ciborium! When the fence was removed, the modernists then remembered why it had been placed there. Tradition solved problems. Remove the traditional solution, and the problem will almost immediately return.
Fr Rutledge knows that the vertical element is necessary. So how was the verticality achieved? He elaborates at 7:40 and on:
1. Green marble apsial colonnade
2. Green elements on the sanctuary floor will highlight the columns
3. The three apsial murals (partly blocked by the columns), with the central featuring the paschal lamb with gold leafing
At 8:34 he boasts, instead of a reredos or baldachin, "We have something even more impressive... with an 8 column colonnade, with artwork spanning the entire back of the sanctuary, with up to 30 vertical feet of artwork."
Yes, so impressive that it fits right in with the trend of Novus Ordo architectural innovation, completely cut off from actual tradition but claiming to be a return to a "purer historical practice." So impressive that even the more conservative elements of the Novus Ordo don't do that anymore but have reinstated some form of ciborium in their newest, best churches. Notice those Roman basilicas: yes, they have apsial murals from floor to ceiling AND a glorious baldacchino! They did not care if the precious wall art would be blocked. The focus is not the mural but the altar! But the SSPX knows better. They are, after all, the true guardians of tradition.
A second problem that this new sanctuary will have, since it has insisted on a free-standing altar, is having proper space for the liturgical ceremonials. In fact, this is why the altars were moved to the back of the apse--to make more space for the more solemn liturgies. There is hardly 10 feet of space between the bottom steps of the altar to the steps leading to the railing and probably 8 feet or less to the left and right of the altar before hitting the colonnade. Think of the crammed Pontifical Masses in a church that is so large, with an altar that is as large as the one in Santa Maria Maggiore, yet no space for the actual liturgy!
And what of the liturgical choir, given there is only 10 feet between the altar and steps? They created the ingeniously innovative solution of placing the choir "stalls" in the side chapels, which open up into the sanctuary, another unique architectural form that I'm positive the SSPX historians can point to the best Roman precedents.
But unfortunately, the Society is not known for its beautiful liturgy. Because of their missionary spirit, they are a continuation of the Jesuits when it comes to liturgy. Hopefully they do not end up like the latter. At least the old Jesuits knew how to build proper churches! And don't get me started on the murals!
All of these issues, and more, in a church that they apparently spent countless hours--with many brilliant minds, they assure us--thinking over every detail. Perhaps this is how the committee conversation went:
"Here is another classic problem. How do we solve it? Should we do what the Church has always done when faced with the same problems? Of course not! Let's create something completely new and claim it is traditional and even more fitting and beautiful! And if anyone questions us, they are ignorant. Clearly they did not watch the informational video in its entirety, where we attempt to speak down to their level of stupidity!"
-
The SSPX time and again has shown an uncritical acceptance of the principles of the Liturgical Movement, the same movement that, when left unchecked, led us straight into the Novus Ordo. The priests in Europe tend to be better rounded since they are still surrounded by ancient churches that have the full variety of styles.
Great post, but with regard to that last sentence above, to quote something Father Schmidberger once told me, "I not so sure as you are."
Some of the European Trad chapels are even worse than anything we've had here. French are much more into promoting things like the Dialog Mass, and frown much more in the pre-1955 Holy Week Rites.
I actually feel as though the Europeans are more "progressive" than the American Traditionalists in many ways.
-
canis hit the nail on the head with regard to the difference, that the Traditional Roman versions emphasize the verticality. They draw the eye up toward Heaven, where you can almost picture or visualize God up there in Heaven viewing and accepting the Sacrifice below. It raises the eye to Heaven above the altar, whereas the Immaculate one draw the eye down toward it. THAT is the difference between the Modernist table and the Traditional styles. St. Peregrine's version does have the baldachin, but it most certainly does not have the effect of raising the eyes upward toward Heaven, where God is receiving the sacrifice. It just looks like a simple cover. It looks like a roof on a shed or an awning hanging over a patio, but does not evoke the sense that God is there in the Heaven above looking down upon and receiving the Sacrifice.
But then trento here thinks that Father Robinson's books are perfectl Catholics ... so I think he's disqualified as a competent judge of Modernism. I really wish you wouldn't call yourself "trento," since the Fathers at Trent would condemn many of your posts defending Father Robinson as heretical.
-
My big argument is THE BIG PICTURE.
If the SSPX is making lots of SMALL moves, ALL OF WHICH tend toward ONE CLEAR GOAL -- then they are all part of a bigger plan.
Just like if I steal $10 from a man every day for a year, I actually stole $3650, which is a tidy sum. You have to look at that big picture.
For example:
* We're just going to work closer with the Novus Ordo Bishops, focus on how they are the Ordinary and have more communication with them, bring them into the seminary to speak with the seminarians, and have the seminarians kneel and kiss their ring.
* We're just going to start teaching Theology in English.
* We're just going to make Tradition more palatable to non-Catholics, we are now allergic to being called "weird", "rad trad", "extremist", "disobedient", etc.
* We're just going to have a table-like altar
* We're just going to have Novus Ordo priests witness SSPX marriages
* We're just going to totally change the seminary formation process, including the spiritual formation: making OBEDIENCE the highest virtue (as opposed to a more appropriate virtue for soldiers during a time of war, such as Prudence, Fortitude, Fidelity, etc.)
(see Sean Johnson's book for dozens more such changes WHICH HAVE HAPPENED, PAST TENSE)
You can't excuse ALL of these in toto, even if you might brush each of them aside individually with a lame or even a good excuse.
-
Great post, but with regard to that last sentence above, to quote something Father Schmidberger once told me, "I not so sure as you are."
Some of the European Trad chapels are even worse than anything we've had here. French are much more into promoting things like the Dialog Mass, and frown much more in the pre-1955 Holy Week Rites.
I actually feel as though the Europeans are more "progressive" than the American Traditionalists in many ways.
I suppose everyone here thinks that they are more traditional than the others.
-
canis hit the nail on the head with regard to the difference, that the Traditional Roman versions emphasize the verticality. They draw the eye up toward Heaven, where you can almost picture or visualize God up there in Heaven viewing and accepting the Sacrifice below. It raises the eye to Heaven above the altar, whereas the Immaculate one draw the eye down toward it. THAT is the difference between the Modernist table and the Traditional styles. St. Peregrine's version does have the baldachin, but it most certainly does not have the effect of raising the eyes upward toward Heaven, where God is receiving the sacrifice. It just looks like a simple cover. It looks like a roof on a shed or an awning hanging over a patio, but does not evoke the sense that God is there in the Heaven above looking down upon and receiving the Sacrifice.
But then trento here thinks that Father Robinson's books are perfectl Catholics ... so I think he's disqualified as a competent judge of Modernism. I really wish you wouldn't call yourself "trento," since the Fathers at Trent would condemn many of your posts defending Father Robinson as heretical.
I do not like St Peregrine's version either.
You Mr. Lad sure love to digress. I have not decided on my position about Fr. Robinson's book but merely posted the replies available so far. If you would care to recall, I would love to listen to a debate between the two sides. As a sede, you don't have any Magisterium to guide you, you easily brush off pre-conciliar books with imprimaturs that goes against what you taught, you cast aspersions on pre-conciliar clergy that wasn't condemned by pre-conciliar Popes. What is a simple Catholic like me to do? Obviously it would be more believable for a simple Catholic to trust non-condemned priests and clergy in good faith than to trust a lay person who did not complete seminary and acts like he's the Pope.
-
I do not like St Peregrine's version either.
You Mr. Lad sure love to digress. I have not decided on my position about Fr. Robinson's book but merely posted the replies available so far. If you would care to recall, I would love to listen to a debate between the two sides. As a sede, you don't have any Magisterium to guide you, you easily brush off pre-conciliar books with imprimaturs that goes against what you taught, you cast aspersions on pre-conciliar clergy that wasn't condemned by pre-conciliar Popes. What is a simple Catholic like me to do? Obviously it would be more believable for a simple Catholic to trust non-condemned priests and clergy in good faith than to trust a lay person who did not complete seminary and acts like he's the Pope.
Whenever I argue I make sure that 90% of what I say are quotes from saints and Popes so that when the inevitable reply comes: "Why would I believe YOU over my priest / 2000 bishops / theologians?" I can be confident that I wasn't asserting anything on my own authority but repeating what the Church has taught.
If you haven't noticed, these are confusing times. Pick ten traditionalists and you'll get eleven opinions, you'll have to make your own judgments based upon ACTUAL authorities: Popes, councils, church fathers and doctors.
Ladislaus certainly disagrees with the majority of theologians but that doesn't matter since he is in agreement with the Popes, councils and church fathers.
-
Some of the European Trad chapels are even worse than anything we've had here. French are much more into promoting things like the Dialog Mass, and frown much more in the pre-1955 Holy Week Rites.
I actually feel as though the Europeans are more "progressive" than the American Traditionalists in many ways.
There is no doubt about it, at least in France. At St. Nicollet du Chardonnet, most women are unveiled, the dialogue mass is ubiquitous everywhere, and in some places, the Fraternity says the gospels in the vernacular at the altar (and has been for 25+ years).
But this progressiveness has been exported from France to America since the replacement of Msgr. Williamson in Winona with Abbe LeRoux, who quickly changed Mass postures for the seminarians (and the faithful followed suit). A few years later, the seminarians got ordained and implemented these Francophile preferences in their assigned chapels.
In time, it seems the Americains will "catch up" to France in this way.
-
Great post, but with regard to that last sentence above, to quote something Father Schmidberger once told me, "I not so sure as you are."
Some of the European Trad chapels are even worse than anything we've had here. French are much more into promoting things like the Dialog Mass, and frown much more in the pre-1955 Holy Week Rites.
I actually feel as though the Europeans are more "progressive" than the American Traditionalists in many ways.
Then you have some European trads who feel superior to the American trads. I'm glad that America was always more conservative in liturgical matters than Europe
-
Then you have some European trads who feel superior to the American trads. I'm glad that America was always more conservative in liturgical matters than Europe
Yes, that is certainly a thing. Many Euro Trads look down on Americans. They have their beautiful history, churches, superior education, superior food, etc.
-
There is no doubt about it, at least in France. At St. Nicollet du Chardonnet, most women are unveiled, the dialogue mass is ubiquitous everywhere, and in some places, the Fraternity says the gospels in the vernacular at the altar (and has been for 25+ years).
But this progressiveness has been exported from France to America since the replacement of Msgr. Williamson in Winona with Abbe LeRoux, who quickly changed Mass postures for the seminarians (and the faithful followed suit). A few years later, the seminarians got ordained and implemented these Francophile preferences in their assigned chapels.
In time, it seems the Americains will "catch up" to France in this way.
That's why, despite the lack of daily drama, the SSPX Crisis continues AS STRONG AS EVER today.
As you mentioned, the whole formation process for SSPX priests has changed, going back 15 years already. When these priests become the norm (which could be at YOUR CHAPEL next August!) you're done for.
Then all you can do is leave, stay home, and wish you had started earlier supporting Resistance priests, organizing alternate chapels, etc. But it will be too late then for MOST, not just for many.
The Resistance is as necessary as ever, despite not exactly taking off like a rocket, or experiencing much growth (that's a nice way to say it).
-
That's why, despite the lack of daily drama, the SSPX Crisis continues AS STRONG AS EVER today.
As you mentioned, the whole formation process for SSPX priests has changed, going back 15 years already. When these priests become the norm (which could be at YOUR CHAPEL next August!) you're done for.
Then all you can do is leave, stay home, and wish you had started earlier supporting Resistance priests, organizing alternate chapels, etc. But it will be too late then for MOST, not just for many.
The Resistance is as necessary as ever, despite not exactly taking off like a rocket, or experiencing much growth (that's a nice way to say it).
Yeah. I'm starting to understand the Dimonds. At some point the priests just get too heretical to go to Mass. I think they put the line too early but I'm afraid in the near future when the native seminarians are ordained we'll get such modernism that I'll have to stay home.
-
Great post, but with regard to that last sentence above, to quote something Father Schmidberger once told me, "I not so sure as you are."
Some of the European Trad chapels are even worse than anything we've had here. French are much more into promoting things like the Dialog Mass, and frown much more in the pre-1955 Holy Week Rites.
I actually feel as though the Europeans are more "progressive" than the American Traditionalists in many ways.
This is correct. My mind quickly thought of the few positive examples and forgot about the rest. A bad habit! ;-)
The Dialogue Mass and the embracing of the reformed Holy Week are further examples of the uncritical acceptance of the Liturgical Movement.
-
Yeah. I'm starting to understand the Dimonds. At some point the priests just get too heretical to go to Mass. I think they put the line too early but I'm afraid in the near future when the native seminarians are ordained we'll get such modernism that I'll have to stay home.
There is no possible circuмstance in the future that will make me excuse or justify the EVIL of the Dimond brothers. They are NOT just accidental home aloners ("I don't have a Traditional Chapel within driving distance to attend for Sunday Mass."). Is that what you think?
No, they are DOGMATIC. They have cut themselves off from the rest of the Catholic Church, they are therefore Schismatic. They have set themselves up as the Pope and the "last 10 Catholics on earth". I am tempted to say "They can go to hell!" but that's precisely where they're headed already!
You seem to be rather confused and uninformed about what exactly I (and many others) have against the Dimond Brothers.
They excommunicate all and sundry who disagree with them. How is that Catholic? How is that excusable, under ANY circuмstances? Even the Crisis in the Church is no excuse for their evils.
-
There is no possible circuмstance in the future that will make me excuse or justify the EVIL of the Dimond brothers. They are NOT just accidental home aloners ("I don't have a Traditional Chapel within driving distance to attend for Sunday Mass."). Is that what you think?
No, they are DOGMATIC. They have cut themselves off from the rest of the Catholic Church, they are therefore Schismatic. They have set themselves up as the Pope and the "last 10 Catholics on earth". I am tempted to say "They can go to hell!" but that's precisely where they're headed already!
You seem to be rather confused and uninformed about what exactly I (and many others) have against the Dimond Brothers.
They excommunicate all and sundry who disagree with them. How is that Catholic? How is that excusable, under ANY circuмstances? Even the Crisis in the Church is no excuse for their evils.
I'm pretty sure they're not dogmatic home aloners. They say they attend Mass at some eastern Catholic priest. What they have a problem is attending a heretical homily.
I certainly disagree with their liberal branding of everyone as heretics and of bad will but I wouldn't dare call them evil, even though they exhibit some disturbing character flaws and bad manners.
-
Then you have some European trads who feel superior to the American trads. I'm glad that America was always more conservative in liturgical matters than Europe
I think that's mostly the French ... and the Parisians in particular. I haven't found such condescending attitudes from those who hail from other parts of Europe or even from the French countryside. Yes, indeed, their countries have a history of having been Catholic states, where the US never was ... but all the more to their shame that they rebelled against the Church and cast it out. But the Parisian condescension is not limited to matters of faith; they consider themselves culturally superior to the Anglox-Saxon and American barbarians.
-
I am not from Europe but I have the same feelings about some American priests trying to impose American customs elsewhere. I guess one is inclined to view one's own culture to be superior than others.
-
Whenever I argue I make sure that 90% of what I say are quotes from saints and Popes so that when the inevitable reply comes: "Why would I believe YOU over my priest / 2000 bishops / theologians?" I can be confident that I wasn't asserting anything on my own authority but repeating what the Church has taught.
If you haven't noticed, these are confusing times. Pick ten traditionalists and you'll get eleven opinions, you'll have to make your own judgments based upon ACTUAL authorities: Popes, councils, church fathers and doctors.
Ladislaus certainly disagrees with the majority of theologians but that doesn't matter since he is in agreement with the Popes, councils and church fathers.
You can argue all you like but when the pharisaical aspersions and heretic-labelling are added, that makes you no different from the Dimonds.
-
You can argue all you like but when the pharisaical aspersions and heretic-labelling are added, that makes you no different from the Dimonds.
I actually haven't called anyone a heretic on this forum and you can verify that by using the search function.
-
Canis: Thank you for your post, very true and very informative
-
This topic recently came to my attention again, and it prompted me to look at one of the traditional books on the matter, Peter Anson's Churches: Their Plan and Furnishing (1948). The whole set of chapters on altars is very interesting, but for brevity and the interest of readers, the following excerpt from chapter 6 captures one of the striking flaws (and, I add, novelties) of the Immaculata altar. Namely, the lack of a baldacchino or some sort of canopy. The lack of this canopy, which also provides a necessary vertical element to the altar, is why so many traditionalists have an intuitive sense that this altar is a "Novus Ordo table." The issue isn't that it is detached, as all the altars of the Roman basilicas are, but that it lacks a canopy, which all Roman altars include. As I said before, the modernisers removed canopies as quickly as possible because the vertical element was a visual reminder of the transcendent nature of the Holy Sacrifice; when you remove it, you flatten the Mass to the communal "meal" that they wished to create.
The idea of the apse murals and surrounding columns (without any cover) constituting the vertical element of the altar or a canopy is completely novel in Catholic tradition and would have obviously been rejected by the Sacred Congregation of Rites as satisfying the liturgical norms.
Further, Father in the video refers to how the old requirement of a baldacchino was done away with, but as the author below shows, he conveniently ignores that many liturgical authorities considered that the requirement still applied to the high altar and Blessed Sacrament altar. We find this so often among SSPX priests: they pick and choose what constitutes tradition and hence are "cafeteria traditionalists."
The excerpt:
The Sacred Congregation of Rites laid down in 1697 that every altar should be covered with a civory or canopy. More recently (in 1846), that at least the altar of the Blessed Sacrament should be so respected. However, the editors of the General Index of the Decrees of the S.R.C. and certain modern liturgical writers maintain that, owing to the widespread neglect of this discipline, even in Rome itself, these decrees no longer bind. On the other hand, many authorities insist that the decrees are still in force for the high and Blessed Sacrament altars.
It is still the mind of the Church that a civory is the best way to emphasize the dignity and majesty of the altar as representing Christ Himself. Geoffrey Webb reminds us that a canopy "is the most effective way of expressing honour due to royalty; and there is nothing which can replace it as the most expressive manifestation of the Altar's true dignity and majesty." Van der Stappen explains this principle: "The mind of the Church is that over all altars should be constructed a civory on columns, or a shrine of wood or stone or marble or, in the absence of a canopy (i.e., civory) on columns, should be hung a canopy which they call a baldaquin, square in shape, covering the altar and its footpace. If a (civory) on columns, or a baldaquin of this kind is fitting over any altar, it is certainly most of all fitting over the altar in which the Most Holy Sacrament is reserved; and not only is it fitting, but the S.R.C. has established that a baldaquin should definitely be placed."
[...]
In view of the wide-spread neglect of the rules laid down about canopies over altars, it cannot be insisted too strongly that even the most simple church, where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved, should not be without some form of canopy over the altar. Cardinal Schuster writes: "In the minds of the early Christians the Altar could never be without the halo of its sacred nature—that is, the Ciborium or Baldaquin in marble or in silver. The Altar in its entirety constituted the true Tabernacle of the Most High, who assuredly could not dwell sub divo without a special roof of His won under the lofty vaulting of the naos."
-
This topic recently came to my attention again, and it prompted me to look at one of the traditional books on the matter, Peter Anson's Churches: Their Plan and Furnishing (1948). The whole set of chapters on altars is very interesting, but for brevity and the interest of readers, the following excerpt from chapter 6 captures one of the striking flaws (and, I add, novelties) of the Immaculata altar. Namely, the lack of a baldacchino or some sort of canopy. The lack of this canopy, which also provides a necessary vertical element to the altar, is why so many traditionalists have an intuitive sense that this altar is a "Novus Ordo table." The issue isn't that it is detached, as all the altars of the Roman basilicas are, but that it lacks a canopy, which all Roman altars include. As I said before, the modernisers removed canopies as quickly as possible because the vertical element was a visual reminder of the transcendent nature of the Holy Sacrifice; when you remove it, you flatten the Mass to the communal "meal" that they wished to create.
The idea of the apse murals and surrounding columns (without any cover) constituting the vertical element of the altar or a canopy is completely novel in Catholic tradition and would have obviously been rejected by the Sacred Congregation of Rites as satisfying the liturgical norms.
Further, Father in the video refers to how the old requirement of a baldacchino was done away with, but as the author below shows, he conveniently ignores that many liturgical authorities considered that the requirement still applied to the high altar and Blessed Sacrament altar. We find this so often among SSPX priests: they pick and choose what constitutes tradition and hence are "cafeteria traditionalists."
The excerpt:
The Sacred Congregation of Rites laid down in 1697 that every altar should be covered with a civory or canopy. More recently (in 1846), that at least the altar of the Blessed Sacrament should be so respected. However, the editors of the General Index of the Decrees of the S.R.C. and certain modern liturgical writers maintain that, owing to the widespread neglect of this discipline, even in Rome itself, these decrees no longer bind. On the other hand, many authorities insist that the decrees are still in force for the high and Blessed Sacrament altars.
It is still the mind of the Church that a civory is the best way to emphasize the dignity and majesty of the altar as representing Christ Himself. Geoffrey Webb reminds us that a canopy "is the most effective way of expressing honour due to royalty; and there is nothing which can replace it as the most expressive manifestation of the Altar's true dignity and majesty." Van der Stappen explains this principle: "The mind of the Church is that over all altars should be constructed a civory on columns, or a shrine of wood or stone or marble or, in the absence of a canopy (i.e., civory) on columns, should be hung a canopy which they call a baldaquin, square in shape, covering the altar and its footpace. If a (civory) on columns, or a baldaquin of this kind is fitting over any altar, it is certainly most of all fitting over the altar in which the Most Holy Sacrament is reserved; and not only is it fitting, but the S.R.C. has established that a baldaquin should definitely be placed."
[...]
In view of the wide-spread neglect of the rules laid down about canopies over altars, it cannot be insisted too strongly that even the most simple church, where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved, should not be without some form of canopy over the altar. Cardinal Schuster writes: "In the minds of the early Christians the Altar could never be without the halo of its sacred nature—that is, the Ciborium or Baldaquin in marble or in silver. The Altar in its entirety constituted the true Tabernacle of the Most High, who assuredly could not dwell sub divo without a special roof of His won under the lofty vaulting of the naos."
A lot of good information and research here! Thank you for sharing!
-
Here is my opinion on the matter:
Does the SSPX have an arcane, Liturgical justification for their controversial altar? I'm sure they do. Not saying it's definitely legit, but it very well could be.
NEVERTHELESS, the fact remains that each and every STEP of theirs these days is always in the same direction. By "coincidence". Or is it (((coincidence)))?
Just like the Novus Ordo. They justified EACH of their novelties and each of their breaks with Tradition. But as a whole, it was UNMISTAKEABLE that they were turning the Catholic Mass into a protestant service. That is the big picture we shouldn't miss.
One of the biggest eye-openers was when I studied the changes found in the Novus Ordo Mass. Each and every change was in the same direction -- showing that there was a conspiracy and a plan behind it. Each and every change was AWAY from Mass-as-sacrifice, downplayed the Blessed Virgin Mary, Purgatory, etc. LESS belief in the Real Presence, LESS genuflections, always more banal and anti-sacred, etc.
So, in other words, I keep my eye on the Big Picture and not fall for any justification from the SSPX priests. Even if they have "taken in a vacuum" justifications for this or that. I know the overall plan, the SPIRIT with which they do everything. So in that respect, they're not justified at all. They're still selling out to the Conciliar Church, Vatican II, and ultimately the Novus Ordo.
-
The church is set to be opened and consecrated in May. Things may change between now and then. I would wait to see the finished product to make a judgment.