Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Miseremini on August 28, 2014, 05:46:56 PM
-
Looked at the SSPX website from the US and they've just posted a video of SSPX priest offering Mass at the shrine of their patron in Rome.
Sorry don 't know how to make a link to it. Perhaps someone could post it.
-
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/sspx-mass-st-peters-basilica-video-4715
Here ya go....
-
Note the source: Rorate Caeli is NOT a "Resistance" source. On the contrary! They are quite anti-Resistance. And the video has the SSPX logo in the upper-left corner, so this is legit.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/08/sspx-priest-celebrates-mass-in-saint.html
By the gracious permission of the higher direction of the Papal Basilica of Saint Peter in the Vatican, the faithful of the church of Saint-Martin-des-Gaules, Noisy-le-Grand (near Paris) -- who were in Rome for a summer vacation pilgrimage led by Father Michel de Sivry, of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) -- were able to attend a Mass at the Altar of Saint Pius X, where the saintly Pope's body reposes.
The Mass in the Vatican Basilica was celebrated by Fr. de Sivry on August 9, 2014, during this special centennial year of the dies natalis of Saint Pius X.
Video below:
http://laportelatine.org/mediatheque/videotheque/messe_a_st_pierre_de_rome_140809/messe_a_st_pierre_de_rome_140809.php
-
Here is a comment from "gpmtrad" on Angelqueen:
Note the kaftan-style NO “chasuble” and lack of cassocks or surplices on the sneakered altar boys. As well, veils seem to have largely disappeared from the ladies’ heads.
And, as is obvious, this is an official product of the SSPX (logo in upper left of video.)
Yep, sure glad to see “nothing’s changed” in the Society.
And, no (for the tenth time at least!). I’m NOT in the “resistance,” have nothing to do with it and have never personally met even one member of it. Nor am I in the pew of any SSPX chapel and have not been for at least the last six or seven years. I’ve observed the cινιℓ ωαr WITHIN the Society since 2012 and I consider it a catastrophe for both Menzingen and the “resistors.” My point here is that the folks who are convinced that all is not as well as the SSPX insists, are NOT without their point to make, on occasion.
There MAY be more to this story but the visuals here demand some SERIOUS explanations. At the very least, I am inclined to think that a devout SSPX advocate would insist on nothing less.
-
The celebrant uses a modernist ornament (is not not a gothic raditional ornament) and not uses the maniple.
There is no altar cards.
Acolytes are dressed informally and do not touch the bell.
No stock burse of the corporal nor tray of communion (the pall is used in place of this).
The Mass of the Virgin must be celebrated with white ornaments, but these are red.
Many women have no veil.
(Google translation)
-
1. The celebrant uses a modernist ornament (is not not a gothic raditional ornament) and not uses the maniple.
2. There is no altar cards.
3. Acolytes are dressed informally and do not touch the bell.
4. No stock burse of the corporal nor tray of communion (the pall is used in place of this).
5. The Mass of the Virgin must be celebrated with white ornaments, but these are red.
6. Many women have no veil.
(Google translation)
I don't have a perfect answer to all of these, but for some of them there is a good explanation.
1. (Good question!)
2. Altar cards are just memory aids; they are not sacramentals nor are they necessary.
3. This is also OK for something like a pilgrimage, where a cassock/surplice isn't available. They also didn't pack one because they didn't think they'd be able to say Mass in one of these places. They were probably wearing sneakers because they were good walking shoes for a pilgrimage.
4. Usually the priest uses his own (brass) paten, the corporal (a linen cloth that is purified carefully by the priest) or the pall (square, stiff piece of linen) if a server paten is not available. I think these are all adequate "expedient" means of protecting the Blessed Sacrament when a server paten is not available. This one I'm not 100% sure about. The Google Translation here was quite garbled.
At any rate, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt on this one for now.
5. (Good question!)
6. (Good question!) Though I believe it's already common knowledge that Europe is much more liberal in this department. In general, Europe has slid further downhill than the USA as far as liberalism, morality, etc.
-
One must wonder if the altar had previously been desecrated by a celebration of the sacrilegious Novus Ordo?
-
When on pilgrimage doesn't the priest take a Mass kit with him to offer Mass daily for his pilgrims? So wouldn't he have a paten, chasuble, maniple, amice etc with him?
Also his NO vestment is not like the traditional vestments which had a cross on the back (like the ones seen to be worn by Bishop Williamson)
-
I forgot to post a picture of the event:
-
I read a comment elsewhere:
Missa Salve sancte parens but wearing red. Most likely it was from the basilica sacristy. And the altar boys came in after father started in lay clothing....looks like a rush job, no preparation. Perhaps they were visiting St Peter's without expecting to say Mass there, and the priest just asked the person-in-charge in passing whether he could say Mass and got an OK, and had to use whatever was prepared by the basilica sacristy for that day (red for St Edith Stein in the new calendar), no maniple, no 1962 altar missal.
By the way, it is a known thing that French women in particular don't fancy wearing veils. Not even the SSPX has been able to change this liberal attitude as it has been so entrenched, almost cultural.
-
Note the source: Rorate Caeli is NOT a "Resistance" source. On the contrary! They are quite anti-Resistance. And the video has the SSPX logo in the upper-left corner, so this is legit.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/08/sspx-priest-celebrates-mass-in-saint.html
By the gracious permission of the higher direction of the Papal Basilica of Saint Peter in the Vatican, the faithful of the church of Saint-Martin-des-Gaules, Noisy-le-Grand (near Paris) -- who were in Rome for a summer vacation pilgrimage led by Father Michel de Sivry, of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) -- were able to attend a Mass at the Altar of Saint Pius X, where the saintly Pope's body reposes.
The Mass in the Vatican Basilica was celebrated by Fr. de Sivry on August 9, 2014, during this special centennial year of the dies natalis of Saint Pius X.
Video below:
http://laportelatine.org/mediatheque/videotheque/messe_a_st_pierre_de_rome_140809/messe_a_st_pierre_de_rome_140809.php
I thought this comment was interesting from the SSPX site itself (which I posted above):
Not only has it been reported that this occurred with the prior knowledge and consent of the basilica's "highest authority", but a video team even filmed the event for the French District's website, LaPorteLatine.org, where it may be watched.
Exactly who was the "highest authority"? Would that be Francis? Why not mention the name?
And it appears there was "prior knowledge" so it wasn't a last minute deal (another poster suggested this).
-
Note the source: Rorate Caeli is NOT a "Resistance" source. On the contrary! They are quite anti-Resistance. And the video has the SSPX logo in the upper-left corner, so this is legit.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/08/sspx-priest-celebrates-mass-in-saint.html
By the gracious permission of the higher direction of the Papal Basilica of Saint Peter in the Vatican, the faithful of the church of Saint-Martin-des-Gaules, Noisy-le-Grand (near Paris) -- who were in Rome for a summer vacation pilgrimage led by Father Michel de Sivry, of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) -- were able to attend a Mass at the Altar of Saint Pius X, where the saintly Pope's body reposes.
The Mass in the Vatican Basilica was celebrated by Fr. de Sivry on August 9, 2014, during this special centennial year of the dies natalis of Saint Pius X.
Video below:
http://laportelatine.org/mediatheque/videotheque/messe_a_st_pierre_de_rome_140809/messe_a_st_pierre_de_rome_140809.php
I thought this comment was interesting from the SSPX site itself (which I posted above):
Not only has it been reported that this occurred with the prior knowledge and consent of the basilica's "highest authority", but a video team even filmed the event for the French District's website, LaPorteLatine.org, where it may be watched.
Exactly who was the "highest authority"? Would that be Francis? Why not mention the name?
And it appears there was "prior knowledge" so it wasn't a last minute deal (another poster suggested this).
I tend to think the "highest authority" set the conditions and were ready to record the compromise. I cannot imagine an SSPX or any other priest not being ready for such an event.
-
Note the source: Rorate Caeli is NOT a "Resistance" source. On the contrary! They are quite anti-Resistance. And the video has the SSPX logo in the upper-left corner, so this is legit.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/08/sspx-priest-celebrates-mass-in-saint.html
By the gracious permission of the higher direction of the Papal Basilica of Saint Peter in the Vatican, the faithful of the church of Saint-Martin-des-Gaules, Noisy-le-Grand (near Paris) -- who were in Rome for a summer vacation pilgrimage led by Father Michel de Sivry, of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) -- were able to attend a Mass at the Altar of Saint Pius X, where the saintly Pope's body reposes.
The Mass in the Vatican Basilica was celebrated by Fr. de Sivry on August 9, 2014, during this special centennial year of the dies natalis of Saint Pius X.
Video below:
http://laportelatine.org/mediatheque/videotheque/messe_a_st_pierre_de_rome_140809/messe_a_st_pierre_de_rome_140809.php
I thought this comment was interesting from the SSPX site itself (which I posted above):
Not only has it been reported that this occurred with the prior knowledge and consent of the basilica's "highest authority", but a video team even filmed the event for the French District's website, LaPorteLatine.org, where it may be watched.
Exactly who was the "highest authority"? Would that be Francis? Why not mention the name?
And it appears there was "prior knowledge" so it wasn't a last minute deal (another poster suggested this).
^
THIS
-
Can anyone translate the sermon?
Someone told me is said in part, " "We're very fortunate to be here in Rome. Rome is the capital of Christendom. Rome is the head of the Church." Rome, Rome, Rome.
...but not one word about modernist Rome.
-
Can anyone translate the sermon?
Someone told me is said in part, " "We're very fortunate to be here in Rome. Rome is the capital of Christendom. Rome is the head of the Church." Rome, Rome, Rome.
...but not one word about modernist Rome.
Did they mention that Francis never even mentioned Pius X's centenary?
This also looks more like a diocesan/indult TLM.
-
It's quite possible this was just a token compromise.
"Hey, SSPX. You want to distinguish yourselves from Sedevacantism so bad. You want to be accepted by Rome so bad. How about this. You can say Mass in this Basilica if your priest is willing to wear a standard Novus Ordo chasuble while saying it. And you have to use red, which is the color for today's feast day on the new calendar. Deal?"
It's the proverbial grain of incense offered to Baal, or the piece of bacon offered to the Jєωιѕн youths to eat. That's what it is.
They said, "Hey frog. Hop in this pot. Ok, the water is 70 degrees, fresh from the tap. Do you care if I turn on the heat until it's 72 degrees? The frog said, "no problem! I can survive until it reaches 100 degrees!"
Sure, but the next day he'll ask for 74, then 76, then 78... you get the idea. At some point, it will cross the line from "harmless compromise" to "deny the Faith".
And getting a string of "yes"es -- each filmed, docuмented and bragged about to the whole world -- will make the next "yes" that much more unstoppable.
Are they really likely to say "no" to the 11th request, when they've answered YES to the first 10? I'm sure that 11th request won't be that much worse than the 10th...
-
Looks like a Novus Ordo affair to me, sans twenty people concelebrating.
-
The celebrant uses a modernist ornament (is not not a gothic raditional ornament) and not uses the maniple.
There is no altar cards.
Acolytes are dressed informally and do not touch the bell.
No stock burse of the corporal nor tray of communion (the pall is used in place of this).
The Mass of the Virgin must be celebrated with white ornaments, but these are red.
Many women have no veil.
(Google translation)
He wore red because that day, August 9, was the feast of the Vigil of St Lawrence. St Lawrence was a martyr. Red is the color of martyrs.
-
It's quite possible this was just a token compromise.
"Hey, SSPX. You want to distinguish yourselves from Sedevacantism so bad. You want to be accepted by Rome so bad. How about this. You can say Mass in this Basilica if your priest is willing to wear a standard Novus Ordo chasuble while saying it. And you have to use red, which is the color for today's feast day on the new calendar. Deal?"
It's the proverbial grain of incense offered to Baal, or the piece of bacon offered to the Jєωιѕн youths to eat. That's what it is.
They said, "Hey frog. Hop in this pot. Ok, the water is 70 degrees, fresh from the tap. Do you care if I turn on the heat until it's 72 degrees? The frog said, "no problem! I can survive until it reaches 100 degrees!"
Sure, but the next day he'll ask for 74, then 76, then 78... you get the idea. At some point, it will cross the line from "harmless compromise" to "deny the Faith".
And getting a string of "yes"es -- each filmed, docuмented and bragged about to the whole world -- will make the next "yes" that much more unstoppable.
Are they really likely to say "no" to the 11th request, when they've answered YES to the first 10? I'm sure that 11th request won't be that much worse than the 10th...
He may not have brought his own vestments with him. Or he may not have had the appropriate colors. He chose to honor the saint by wearing red.
-
It's quite possible this was just a token compromise.
"Hey, SSPX. You want to distinguish yourselves from Sedevacantism so bad. You want to be accepted by Rome so bad. How about this. You can say Mass in this Basilica if your priest is willing to wear a standard Novus Ordo chasuble while saying it. And you have to use red, which is the color for today's feast day on the new calendar. Deal?"
It's the proverbial grain of incense offered to Baal, or the piece of bacon offered to the Jєωιѕн youths to eat. That's what it is.
They said, "Hey frog. Hop in this pot. Ok, the water is 70 degrees, fresh from the tap. Do you care if I turn on the heat until it's 72 degrees? The frog said, "no problem! I can survive until it reaches 100 degrees!"
Sure, but the next day he'll ask for 74, then 76, then 78... you get the idea. At some point, it will cross the line from "harmless compromise" to "deny the Faith".
And getting a string of "yes"es -- each filmed, docuмented and bragged about to the whole world -- will make the next "yes" that much more unstoppable.
Are they really likely to say "no" to the 11th request, when they've answered YES to the first 10? I'm sure that 11th request won't be that much worse than the 10th...
I've personally been to an SSPX mass held in a diocesan shrine. We asked for permission and got it. The shrine sacristy even prepared everything for us, including their usual Novus Ordo vestments, but we declined and said we brought everything with us. I guess it differs from place to place and the circuмstances. For instance, if this French SSPX group was prepared in advance for this Mass, I'm sure they would have brought their Mass kit along rather than used what the basilica supplied. And the servers would have been vested in cassock & surplice.
-
and the ladies would have had their mantilla's.. dah dah dah..... question is, does it look as if any preparation went into the mass at all, was it edifying, i don't think so.
-
It's quite possible this was just a token compromise.
"Hey, SSPX. You want to distinguish yourselves from Sedevacantism so bad. You want to be accepted by Rome so bad. How about this. You can say Mass in this Basilica if your priest is willing to wear a standard Novus Ordo chasuble while saying it. And you have to use red, which is the color for today's feast day on the new calendar. Deal?"
It's the proverbial grain of incense offered to Baal, or the piece of bacon offered to the Jєωιѕн youths to eat. That's what it is.
They said, "Hey frog. Hop in this pot. Ok, the water is 70 degrees, fresh from the tap. Do you care if I turn on the heat until it's 72 degrees? The frog said, "no problem! I can survive until it reaches 100 degrees!"
Sure, but the next day he'll ask for 74, then 76, then 78... you get the idea. At some point, it will cross the line from "harmless compromise" to "deny the Faith".
And getting a string of "yes"es -- each filmed, docuмented and bragged about to the whole world -- will make the next "yes" that much more unstoppable.
Are they really likely to say "no" to the 11th request, when they've answered YES to the first 10? I'm sure that 11th request won't be that much worse than the 10th...
I've personally been to an SSPX mass held in a diocesan shrine. We asked for permission and got it. The shrine sacristy even prepared everything for us, including their usual Novus Ordo vestments, but we declined and said we brought everything with us. I guess it differs from place to place and the circuмstances. For instance, if this French SSPX group was prepared in advance for this Mass, I'm sure they would have brought their Mass kit along rather than used what the basilica supplied. And the servers would have been vested in cassock & surplice.
And I reiterate that, based on what was reported on the SSPX site, they knew about this ahead of time.
-
It's quite possible this was just a token compromise.
"Hey, SSPX. You want to distinguish yourselves from Sedevacantism so bad. You want to be accepted by Rome so bad. How about this. You can say Mass in this Basilica if your priest is willing to wear a standard Novus Ordo chasuble while saying it. And you have to use red, which is the color for today's feast day on the new calendar. Deal?"
It's the proverbial grain of incense offered to Baal, or the piece of bacon offered to the Jєωιѕн youths to eat. That's what it is.
They said, "Hey frog. Hop in this pot. Ok, the water is 70 degrees, fresh from the tap. Do you care if I turn on the heat until it's 72 degrees? The frog said, "no problem! I can survive until it reaches 100 degrees!"
Sure, but the next day he'll ask for 74, then 76, then 78... you get the idea. At some point, it will cross the line from "harmless compromise" to "deny the Faith".
And getting a string of "yes"es -- each filmed, docuмented and bragged about to the whole world -- will make the next "yes" that much more unstoppable.
Are they really likely to say "no" to the 11th request, when they've answered YES to the first 10? I'm sure that 11th request won't be that much worse than the 10th...
He may not have brought his own vestments with him. Or he may not have had the appropriate colors. He chose to honor the saint by wearing red.
I am inclined to avoid criticism because I don't know all the details, and now someone mentioned the lack of veils is cultural. If it is cultural then it happens in French resistance Masses also. This should be considered. We don't know all the details. However, what leads me to believe there is a deceptive element here is the parroting of the event being "unplanned" and "unprepared". Like someone else mentioned, it is a pilgrimage! A pilgrimage to Rome! The first thing you think to bring are proper vestments or at least a veil! Combine this with the fact that they had a camera crew ready and I am inclined to dismiss their defense as not trustworthy. You have a camera crew, but you can't have proper vestments. I suspect that the lack of proper vestments was intentional and those saying otherwise are being deceptive. No matter the case, it doesn't look good. Surely it crossed this priest's mind, "hey we're going to Rome, we will need to say Mass, even if only in the parking lot!". If a better excuse was offered, perhaps the vestments were lost, ruined, stolen, or simply he forgot them on accident.....but not that he improvised at the last minute to have a Mass that was unexpected. What kind of priest goes to Rome with his faithful as the only priest, and doesn't foresee that he will offer Mass. It appears very dishonest what is offered as the excuse for not having traditional vestments.
-
Even when the Novus Ordo presbyters simulate the 62 Missal at St. Peter's they have proper vestments. You can't tell me St. Peter's doesn't have a maniple or burse.
-
This is the "not so subtle" gradualism of the Fellay-ist agenda simply taking its due course, much in the spirit of the JPII "crucifix"/abomination they had flashed about on the SSPX website at one time. Systematic desensitization, I think it's called. When blatant outrages like this cease to shock, it's as good an indicator as any that the frog is thoroughly cooked. I say good deal. Fellay and his Novus Ordo wannabes might as well just come all out of the stinking closet and stop pretending to be Catholic. They are traitors to Christ and useful idiots to their Novus Ordo puppeteers in Rome. Let us not mince words.
-
It's quite possible this was just a token compromise.
"Hey, SSPX. You want to distinguish yourselves from Sedevacantism so bad. You want to be accepted by Rome so bad. How about this. You can say Mass in this Basilica if your priest is willing to wear a standard Novus Ordo chasuble while saying it. And you have to use red, which is the color for today's feast day on the new calendar. Deal?"
It's the proverbial grain of incense offered to Baal, or the piece of bacon offered to the Jєωιѕн youths to eat. That's what it is.
They said, "Hey frog. Hop in this pot. Ok, the water is 70 degrees, fresh from the tap. Do you care if I turn on the heat until it's 72 degrees? The frog said, "no problem! I can survive until it reaches 100 degrees!"
Sure, but the next day he'll ask for 74, then 76, then 78... you get the idea. At some point, it will cross the line from "harmless compromise" to "deny the Faith".
And getting a string of "yes"es -- each filmed, docuмented and bragged about to the whole world -- will make the next "yes" that much more unstoppable.
Are they really likely to say "no" to the 11th request, when they've answered YES to the first 10? I'm sure that 11th request won't be that much worse than the 10th...
He may not have brought his own vestments with him. Or he may not have had the appropriate colors. He chose to honor the saint by wearing red.
I am inclined to avoid criticism because I don't know all the details, and now someone mentioned the lack of veils is cultural. If it is cultural then it happens in French resistance Masses also. This should be considered. We don't know all the details. However, what leads me to believe there is a deceptive element here is the parroting of the event being "unplanned" and "unprepared". Like someone else mentioned, it is a pilgrimage! A pilgrimage to Rome! The first thing you think to bring are proper vestments or at least a veil! Combine this with the fact that they had a camera crew ready and I am inclined to dismiss their defense as not trustworthy. You have a camera crew, but you can't have proper vestments. I suspect that the lack of proper vestments was intentional and those saying otherwise are being deceptive. No matter the case, it doesn't look good. Surely it crossed this priest's mind, "hey we're going to Rome, we will need to say Mass, even if only in the parking lot!". If a better excuse was offered, perhaps the vestments were lost, ruined, stolen, or simply he forgot them on accident.....but not that he improvised at the last minute to have a Mass that was unexpected. What kind of priest goes to Rome with his faithful as the only priest, and doesn't foresee that he will offer Mass. It appears very dishonest what is offered as the excuse for not having traditional vestments.
He may have had green vestments but not the red ones. This was the Vigil of St Lawrence. They were traveling on a pilgrimage. He may not have been able to pack all the colors for every day that they would be traveling.
-
Even when the Novus Ordo #### simulate the 62 Missal at St. Peter's they have proper vestments.
You can't tell me St. Peter's doesn't have a maniple or burse.
You have a lot to learn, eddiearent..............
Matthew has it right. It looks like this was planned.
However, I can personally attest that as of about 6 years ago, the vestments and supplies to be found at St. Peter's Basilica available for the use of visiting priests was utterly abominable. Not only did they have nothing but everyday NovusOrdo garb (I wouldn't call them vestments), but they were RAGS, JUNK, and RIDICULOUS. Rainbow colors in tatters, with stains and threadbare, as if the "gαys" had had far too much fun with them; rug-like heavy coarse woven things that wouldn't even pass for a Mexican sarape; goofy one-stripe toga-like sheets with a hole in the middle for someone to put his head through it -- didn't they have something like that for a guillotine?
There was literally nothing of a traditional description to choose from, and the priest was left to fend for himself as best he could, with the meager chasubles that he had brought (carrying all the colors of chasubles and altar linens that you might need would take the luggage of 4 people to haul around). But he was not forbidden to bring in his own equipment, or, should I say, accoutrements? This is WAR, after all.
Had he known in advance he would have been more prepared, but he had thought, "This is St. Peter's, so they'll certainly have a nice selection of vestments and everything."
Surprise, surprise: they did not.
And the priest is well-connected in the SSPX, too, so I have no question but that the word got around. I'm sure he's not the only one who has tried to say a Traditional Mass in the Basilica in the past decade.
So let the word be known, that IF YOU WANT TO OFFER A REAL MASS IN ST PETER'S BASILICA, YOU MUST COME PREPARED WITH EVERYTHING YOU WILL NEED, just as you would, as Centroamerica here said (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=33524&min=20#p2) (Surely it crossed this priest's mind, "hey we're going to Rome, we will need to say Mass, even if only in the parking lot!"), if you were to say Mass on the Street, a la Frs. Chazal & Pfeiffer in Asia 2 years ago. Maybe someone here remembers the city? They had been LOCKED OUT of the church by Fr. Couture, DS of Asia.
As Fr. Chazal said at that time, "This is war."
.
-
Exactly who was the "highest authority"? Would that be Francis? Why not mention the name?
Sounds like the late Michael Davies who used to quote highest theologians of even higher anonimity
-
It's quite possible this was just a token compromise.
"Hey, SSPX. You want to distinguish yourselves from Sedevacantism so bad. You want to be accepted by Rome so bad. How about this. You can say Mass in this Basilica if your priest is willing to wear a standard Novus Ordo chasuble while saying it. And you have to use red, which is the color for today's feast day on the new calendar. Deal?"
It's the proverbial grain of incense offered to Baal, or the piece of bacon offered to the Jєωιѕн youths to eat. That's what it is.
They said, "Hey frog. Hop in this pot. Ok, the water is 70 degrees, fresh from the tap. Do you care if I turn on the heat until it's 72 degrees? The frog said, "no problem! I can survive until it reaches 100 degrees!"
Sure, but the next day he'll ask for 74, then 76, then 78... you get the idea. At some point, it will cross the line from "harmless compromise" to "deny the Faith".
And getting a string of "yes"es -- each filmed, docuмented and bragged about to the whole world -- will make the next "yes" that much more unstoppable.
Are they really likely to say "no" to the 11th request, when they've answered YES to the first 10? I'm sure that 11th request won't be that much worse than the 10th...
He may not have brought his own vestments with him. Or he may not have had the appropriate colors. He chose to honor the saint by wearing red.
I am inclined to avoid criticism because I don't know all the details, and now someone mentioned the lack of veils is cultural. If it is cultural then it happens in French resistance Masses also. This should be considered. We don't know all the details. However, what leads me to believe there is a deceptive element here is the parroting of the event being "unplanned" and "unprepared". Like someone else mentioned, it is a pilgrimage! A pilgrimage to Rome! The first thing you think to bring are proper vestments or at least a veil! Combine this with the fact that they had a camera crew ready and I am inclined to dismiss their defense as not trustworthy. You have a camera crew, but you can't have proper vestments. I suspect that the lack of proper vestments was intentional and those saying otherwise are being deceptive. No matter the case, it doesn't look good. Surely it crossed this priest's mind, "hey we're going to Rome, we will need to say Mass, even if only in the parking lot!". If a better excuse was offered, perhaps the vestments were lost, ruined, stolen, or simply he forgot them on accident.....but not that he improvised at the last minute to have a Mass that was unexpected. What kind of priest goes to Rome with his faithful as the only priest, and doesn't foresee that he will offer Mass. It appears very dishonest what is offered as the excuse for not having traditional vestments.
He may have had green vestments but not the red ones. This was the Vigil of St Lawrence. They were traveling on a pilgrimage. He may not have been able to pack all the colors for every day that they would be traveling.
Seriously? You have had way too much practice making excuses for others.
-
Exactly who was the "highest authority"? Would that be Francis? Why not mention the name?
Sounds like the late Michael Davies who used to quote highest theologians of even higher anonimity
:laugh1:
-
Even when the Novus Ordo #### simulate the 62 Missal at St. Peter's they have proper vestments.
You can't tell me St. Peter's doesn't have a maniple or burse.
You have a lot to learn, eddiearent..............
Matthew has it right. It looks like this was planned.
However, I can personally attest that as of about 6 years ago, the vestments and supplies to be found at St. Peter's Basilica available for the use of visiting priests was utterly abominable. Not only did they have nothing but everyday NovusOrdo garb (I wouldn't call them vestments), but they were RAGS, JUNK, and RIDICULOUS. Rainbow colors in tatters, with stains and threadbare, as if the "gαys" had had far too much fun with them; rug-like heavy coarse woven things that wouldn't even pass for a Mexican sarape; goofy one-stripe toga-like sheets with a hole in the middle for someone to put his head through it -- didn't they have something like that for a guillotine?
There was literally nothing of a traditional description to choose from, and the priest was left to fend for himself as best he could, with the meager chasubles that he had brought (carrying all the colors of chasubles and altar linens that you might need would take the luggage of 4 people to haul around). But he was not forbidden to bring in his own equipment, or, should I say, accoutrements? This is WAR, after all.
Had he known in advance he would have been more prepared, but he had thought, "This is St. Peter's, so they'll certainly have a nice selection of vestments and everything."
Surprise, surprise: they did not.
And the priest is well-connected in the SSPX, too, so I have no question but that the word got around. I'm sure he's not the only one who has tried to say a Traditional Mass in the Basilica in the past decade.
So let the word be known, that IF YOU WANT TO OFFER A REAL MASS IN ST PETER'S BASILICA, YOU MUST COME PREPARED WITH EVERYTHING YOU WILL NEED, just as you would, as Centroamerica here said (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=33524&min=20#p2) (Surely it crossed this priest's mind, "hey we're going to Rome, we will need to say Mass, even if only in the parking lot!"), if you were to say Mass on the Street, a la Frs. Chazal & Pfeiffer in Asia 2 years ago. Maybe someone here remembers the city? They had been LOCKED OUT of the church by Fr. Couture, DS of Asia.
As Fr. Chazal said at that time, "This is war."
.
It could be that with a lot of visiting priests and other people coming and going they may have trouble keeping good vestments available.
-
It's quite possible this was just a token compromise.
"Hey, SSPX. You want to distinguish yourselves from Sedevacantism so bad. You want to be accepted by Rome so bad. How about this. You can say Mass in this Basilica if your priest is willing to wear a standard Novus Ordo chasuble while saying it. And you have to use red, which is the color for today's feast day on the new calendar. Deal?"
It's the proverbial grain of incense offered to Baal, or the piece of bacon offered to the Jєωιѕн youths to eat. That's what it is.
They said, "Hey frog. Hop in this pot. Ok, the water is 70 degrees, fresh from the tap. Do you care if I turn on the heat until it's 72 degrees? The frog said, "no problem! I can survive until it reaches 100 degrees!"
Sure, but the next day he'll ask for 74, then 76, then 78... you get the idea. At some point, it will cross the line from "harmless compromise" to "deny the Faith".
And getting a string of "yes"es -- each filmed, docuмented and bragged about to the whole world -- will make the next "yes" that much more unstoppable.
Are they really likely to say "no" to the 11th request, when they've answered YES to the first 10? I'm sure that 11th request won't be that much worse than the 10th...
He may not have brought his own vestments with him. Or he may not have had the appropriate colors. He chose to honor the saint by wearing red.
I am inclined to avoid criticism because I don't know all the details, and now someone mentioned the lack of veils is cultural. If it is cultural then it happens in French resistance Masses also. This should be considered. We don't know all the details. However, what leads me to believe there is a deceptive element here is the parroting of the event being "unplanned" and "unprepared". Like someone else mentioned, it is a pilgrimage! A pilgrimage to Rome! The first thing you think to bring are proper vestments or at least a veil! Combine this with the fact that they had a camera crew ready and I am inclined to dismiss their defense as not trustworthy. You have a camera crew, but you can't have proper vestments. I suspect that the lack of proper vestments was intentional and those saying otherwise are being deceptive. No matter the case, it doesn't look good. Surely it crossed this priest's mind, "hey we're going to Rome, we will need to say Mass, even if only in the parking lot!". If a better excuse was offered, perhaps the vestments were lost, ruined, stolen, or simply he forgot them on accident.....but not that he improvised at the last minute to have a Mass that was unexpected. What kind of priest goes to Rome with his faithful as the only priest, and doesn't foresee that he will offer Mass. It appears very dishonest what is offered as the excuse for not having traditional vestments.
He may have had green vestments but not the red ones. This was the Vigil of St Lawrence. They were traveling on a pilgrimage. He may not have been able to pack all the colors for every day that they would be traveling.
Seriously? You have had way too much practice making excuses for others.
I think we should be fair to the priest in question. We were not traveling with them. They may not have had the space to carry the full range of liturgical colors.
-
Saint Pius X looks very happy that a Traditional Mass is being celebrated
celebrated at his altar.
At lease he is not alone in this now Hugh Novus Ordo Church far
different than in his lifetime.
Those two altar boys that came up and served Mass reminded of
an incident that happened in 1964. I came into a church and the
Priest just started Mass without a server. I went up immediately
and served his Mass. It was about an year since I served a
previous Mass.
The only other times was at Saint Dominic's in Washington, D.C.
When I last served Mass in 1969 the only Latin was at the
offertory. The Mass was in the Dominican Rite.
This is 50 years ago now in the past.
-
Even when the Novus Ordo #### simulate the 62 Missal at St. Peter's they have proper vestments.
You can't tell me St. Peter's doesn't have a maniple or burse.
You have a lot to learn, eddiearent..............
Matthew has it right. It looks like this was planned.
However, I can personally attest that as of about 6 years ago, the vestments and supplies to be found at St. Peter's Basilica available for the use of visiting priests was utterly abominable. Not only did they have nothing but everyday NovusOrdo garb (I wouldn't call them vestments), but they were RAGS, JUNK, and RIDICULOUS. Rainbow colors in tatters, with stains and threadbare, as if the "gαys" had had far too much fun with them; rug-like heavy coarse woven things that wouldn't even pass for a Mexican sarape; goofy one-stripe toga-like sheets with a hole in the middle for someone to put his head through it -- didn't they have something like that for a guillotine?
There was literally nothing of a traditional description to choose from, and the priest was left to fend for himself as best he could, with the meager chasubles that he had brought (carrying all the colors of chasubles and altar linens that you might need would take the luggage of 4 people to haul around). But he was not forbidden to bring in his own equipment, or, should I say, accoutrements? This is WAR, after all.
Had he known in advance he would have been more prepared, but he had thought, "This is St. Peter's, so they'll certainly have a nice selection of vestments and everything."
Surprise, surprise: they did not.
And the priest is well-connected in the SSPX, too, so I have no question but that the word got around. I'm sure he's not the only one who has tried to say a Traditional Mass in the Basilica in the past decade.
So let the word be known, that IF YOU WANT TO OFFER A REAL MASS IN ST PETER'S BASILICA, YOU MUST COME PREPARED WITH EVERYTHING YOU WILL NEED, just as you would, as Centroamerica here said (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=33524&min=20#p2) (Surely it crossed this priest's mind, "hey we're going to Rome, we will need to say Mass, even if only in the parking lot!"), if you were to say Mass on the Street, a la Frs. Chazal & Pfeiffer in Asia 2 years ago. Maybe someone here remembers the city? They had been LOCKED OUT of the church by Fr. Couture, DS of Asia.
As Fr. Chazal said at that time, "This is war."
.
They were not locked out. It is just that Fr. Chazal CHOSE to say Mass on the streets. For your information, Fr. Chazal was staying at the priory. Fr Couture banned him from saying Mass in the church publicly, but allowed him to have his daily private Mass. It was unfortunate that Fr. Chazal chose to have Mass said on the streets instead.
-
and the ladies would have had their mantilla's.. dah dah dah..... question is, does it look as if any preparation went into the mass at all, was it edifying, i don't think so.
I agree with you on this. Other than the priest's gestures, the other elements weren't very edifying and is not a good way to introduce newcomers to the Traditional Mass. When people see a priest wearing the Novus Ordo garments, they would be inclined to say there's hardly any difference with the Novus Ordo.
-
The priest and people need guidance and support. Most NO clergy and people were never taught about the true Catholic faith. They need prayers.
Also there is need for moral theology.
-
Even when the Novus Ordo #### simulate the 62 Missal at St. Peter's they have proper vestments.
You can't tell me St. Peter's doesn't have a maniple or burse.
You have a lot to learn, eddiearent..............
Matthew has it right. It looks like this was planned.
However, I can personally attest that as of about 6 years ago, the vestments and supplies to be found at St. Peter's Basilica available for the use of visiting priests was utterly abominable. Not only did they have nothing but everyday NovusOrdo garb (I wouldn't call them vestments), but they were RAGS, JUNK, and RIDICULOUS. Rainbow colors in tatters, with stains and threadbare, as if the "gαys" had had far too much fun with them; rug-like heavy coarse woven things that wouldn't even pass for a Mexican sarape; goofy one-stripe toga-like sheets with a hole in the middle for someone to put his head through it -- didn't they have something like that for a guillotine?
There was literally nothing of a traditional description to choose from, and the priest was left to fend for himself as best he could, with the meager chasubles that he had brought (carrying all the colors of chasubles and altar linens that you might need would take the luggage of 4 people to haul around). But he was not forbidden to bring in his own equipment, or, should I say, accoutrements? This is WAR, after all.
Had he known in advance he would have been more prepared, but he had thought, "This is St. Peter's, so they'll certainly have a nice selection of vestments and everything."
Surprise, surprise: they did not.
And the priest is well-connected in the SSPX, too, so I have no question but that the word got around. I'm sure he's not the only one who has tried to say a Traditional Mass in the Basilica in the past decade.
So let the word be known, that IF YOU WANT TO OFFER A REAL MASS IN ST PETER'S BASILICA, YOU MUST COME PREPARED WITH EVERYTHING YOU WILL NEED, just as you would, as Centroamerica here said (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=33524&min=20#p2) (Surely it crossed this priest's mind, "hey we're going to Rome, we will need to say Mass, even if only in the parking lot!"), if you were to say Mass on the Street, a la Frs. Chazal & Pfeiffer in Asia 2 years ago. Maybe someone here remembers the city? They had been LOCKED OUT of the church by Fr. Couture, DS of Asia.
As Fr. Chazal said at that time, "This is war."
.
They were not locked out. It is just that Fr. Chazal CHOSE to say Mass on the streets. For your information, Fr. Chazal was staying at the priory. Fr Couture banned him from saying Mass in the church publicly, but allowed him to have his daily private Mass. It was unfortunate that Fr. Chazal chose to have Mass said on the streets instead.
Oh Trento, stop this bull-shit. Still trying to defend Fr. Couture? Unless you yourself is Fr. Couture.
When will you people stop lying! :facepalm: :facepalm:
-
[Fr. de Sivry] wore red because that day, [August 9,] was the feast of the Vigil of St Lawrence.
How could I doubt that the above explanation was written by 'poche'?
Ah, yes. The "feast of a vigil"! I'd wonder if that weren't yet another innovation from your Novus Ordo, except that your Novus Ordo doesn't have vigils--at least not in the traditional sense. Not even for Christmas, Easter, Ascension, nor Pentecost. The first one has been reduced to a weekday "of the 4th Week of Advent"; for the latter 2, what would traditionally be vigils have been reduced to mere weekdays of an ordinally numbered "Week of Easter". It's your Novus Ordo that's notorious (among variously leaning traditional Catholics) for its current application of the word vigil to the Saturday-afternoon weekly masses beloved by fans of the Sunday-game-intensive (U.S.) National Football League.
Assuming that I can trust Kenneth G. Bath's Novus Ordo-only liturgical-calendar programming for RomCal.com, August 9 is the "Opt. Mem." of "Teresiae Benedicta of the Cross, V & M", for whom the liturgical color is green.
In my compilation for the calendar of 1960 (from a discarded mid1960s Ordo), which I would assume SSPX relies upon, August 9 is the III-class feast of "S. Ioann M. Vianney, C.", for whom the liturgical color is "alb.", i.e.: white!
But SSPX disagrees: August "9 Our Lady's Saturday", "4cl[ass]", which shows the liturgical color as a surprisingly yellowish off-white, but a shade of white nevertheless. For the patron-saint of priests, it shows August "8: St. John Mary Vianney", 3cl[ass]".[S] 
Lastly, there's Tr@ditio's "Calendar for the Traditional Roman Rite", August "9 Saturday[:] St. John Mary Vianney, C", for whose feast of the double minor class (i.e.: 4th rank), the liturgical color is white. Its calendar for that date does show, as alternatives of distinctly lesser priority, the "Vigil of St. Lawrence" (but see "violet", below), plus what I assume is at most a commemoration of "St. Romanus, M".St Lawrence was a martyr. Red is the color of martyrs.
Indeed it is, but only on their feast days. Even if the date under discussion in the SSPX calendar were primarily assigned to a vigil, I believe that an inspection of any traditional or semitraditional liturgical calendar will show that the liturgical color for any vigil is violet (e.g.: August 14: Vigil of the Assumption)--except for the traditional dual violet-then-white colors on Holy Saturday.
Can any of the former seminarians reading CathInfo point out anything liturgical that I might've overlooked?
-------
Note #: E.g.: <romcal.com/output/2014.html (http://romcal.com/output/2014.html)>.
Note [S]: <www.fsspx.org/en/liturgy/the-liturgy/liturgical-calendar/calendar/?month=aug&yr=2014 (http://www.fsspx.org/en/liturgy/the-liturgy/liturgical-calendar/calendar/?month=aug&yr=2014)>
(an artistic Web page, but an obnoxiously long Web address, what with the latter containing 3 combined instances of "liturgy" or "liturgical", and 2 instances of "calendar").
Note *: <www.traditio.com/calendar/cal1408.htm (http://www.traditio.com/calendar/cal1408.htm)>.
-
[Fr. de Sivry] wore red because that day, [August 9,] was the feast of the Vigil of St Lawrence.
How could I doubt that the above explanation was written by 'poche'?
Ah, yes. The "feast of a vigil"! I'd wonder if that weren't yet another innovation from your Novus Ordo, except that your Novus Ordo doesn't have vigils--at least not in the traditional sense. Not even for Christmas, Easter, Ascension, nor Pentecost. The first one has been reduced to a weekday "of the 4th Week of Advent"; for the latter 2, what would traditionally be vigils have been reduced to mere weekdays of an ordinally numbered "Week of Easter". It's your Novus Ordo that's notorious (among variously leaning traditional Catholics) for its current application of the word vigil to the Saturday-afternoon weekly masses beloved by fans of the Sunday-game-intensive (U.S.) National Football League.
Assuming that I can trust Kenneth G. Bath's Novus Ordo-only liturgical-calendar programming for RomCal.com, August 9 is the "Opt. Mem." of "Teresiae Benedicta of the Cross, V & M", for whom the liturgical color is green.
In my compilation for the calendar of 1960 (from a discarded mid1960s Ordo), which I would assume SSPX relies upon, August 9 is the III-class feast of "S. Ioann M. Vianney, C.", for whom the liturgical color is "alb.", i.e.: white!
But SSPX disagrees: August "9 Our Lady's Saturday", "4cl[ass]", which shows the liturgical color as a surprisingly yellowish off-white, but a shade of white nevertheless. For the patron-saint of priests, it shows August "8: St. John Mary Vianney", 3cl[ass]".[S] 
Lastly, there's Tr@ditio's "Calendar for the Traditional Roman Rite", August "9 Saturday[:] St. John Mary Vianney, C", for whose feast of the double minor class (i.e.: 4th rank), the liturgical color is white. Its calendar for that date does show, as alternatives of distinctly lesser priority, the "Vigil of St. Lawrence" (but see "violet", below), plus what I assume is at most a commemoration of "St. Romanus, M".St Lawrence was a martyr. Red is the color of martyrs.
Indeed it is, but only on their feast days. Even if the date under discussion in the SSPX calendar were primarily assigned to a vigil, I believe that an inspection of any traditional or semitraditional liturgical calendar will show that the liturgical color for any vigil is violet (e.g.: August 14: Vigil of the Assumption)--except for the traditional dual violet-then-white colors on Holy Saturday.
Can any of the former seminarians reading CathInfo point out anything liturgical that I might've overlooked?
-------
Note #: E.g.: <romcal.com/output/2014.html (http://romcal.com/output/2014.html)>.
Note [S]: <www.fsspx.org/en/liturgy/the-liturgy/liturgical-calendar/calendar/?month=aug&yr=2014 (http://www.fsspx.org/en/liturgy/the-liturgy/liturgical-calendar/calendar/?month=aug&yr=2014)>
(an artistic Web page, but an obnoxiously long Web address, what with the latter containing 3 combined instances of "liturgy" or "liturgical", and 2 instances of "calendar").
Note *: <www.traditio.com/calendar/cal1408.htm (http://www.traditio.com/calendar/cal1408.htm)>.
This isn't an innovation of the Novus Ordo. It is from the Missal of 1962.
-
[Fr. de Sivry] wore red because that day, [August 9,] was the feast of the Vigil of St Lawrence.
How could I doubt that the above explanation was written by 'poche'?
Ah, yes. The "feast of a vigil"! I'd wonder if that weren't yet another innovation from your Novus Ordo, except that your Novus Ordo doesn't have vigils--at least not in the traditional sense. Not even for Christmas, Easter, Ascension, nor Pentecost. The first one has been reduced to a weekday "of the 4th Week of Advent"; for the latter 2, what would traditionally be vigils have been reduced to mere weekdays of an ordinally numbered "Week of Easter". It's your Novus Ordo that's notorious (among variously leaning traditional Catholics) for its current application of the word vigil to the Saturday-afternoon weekly masses beloved by fans of the Sunday-game-intensive (U.S.) National Football League.
Assuming that I can trust Kenneth G. Bath's Novus Ordo-only liturgical-calendar programming for RomCal.com, August 9 is the "Opt. Mem." of "Teresiae Benedicta of the Cross, V & M", for whom the liturgical color is green.
In my compilation for the calendar of 1960 (from a discarded mid1960s Ordo), which I would assume SSPX relies upon, August 9 is the III-class feast of "S. Ioann M. Vianney, C.", for whom the liturgical color is "alb.", i.e.: white!
But SSPX disagrees: August "9 Our Lady's Saturday", "4cl[ass]", which shows the liturgical color as a surprisingly yellowish off-white, but a shade of white nevertheless. For the patron-saint of priests, it shows August "8: St. John Mary Vianney", 3cl[ass]".[S] 
Lastly, there's Tr@ditio's "Calendar for the Traditional Roman Rite", August "9 Saturday[:] St. John Mary Vianney, C", for whose feast of the double minor class (i.e.: 4th rank), the liturgical color is white. Its calendar for that date does show, as alternatives of distinctly lesser priority, the "Vigil of St. Lawrence" (but see "violet", below), plus what I assume is at most a commemoration of "St. Romanus, M".St Lawrence was a martyr. Red is the color of martyrs.
Indeed it is, but only on their feast days. Even if the date under discussion in the SSPX calendar were primarily assigned to a vigil, I believe that an inspection of any traditional or semitraditional liturgical calendar will show that the liturgical color for any vigil is violet (e.g.: August 14: Vigil of the Assumption)--except for the traditional dual violet-then-white colors on Holy Saturday.
Can any of the former seminarians reading CathInfo point out anything liturgical that I might've overlooked?
-------
Note #: E.g.: <romcal.com/output/2014.html (http://romcal.com/output/2014.html)>.
Note [S]: <www.fsspx.org/en/liturgy/the-liturgy/liturgical-calendar/calendar/?month=aug&yr=2014 (http://www.fsspx.org/en/liturgy/the-liturgy/liturgical-calendar/calendar/?month=aug&yr=2014)>
(an artistic Web page, but an obnoxiously long Web address, what with the latter containing 3 combined instances of "liturgy" or "liturgical", and 2 instances of "calendar").
Note *: <www.traditio.com/calendar/cal1408.htm (http://www.traditio.com/calendar/cal1408.htm)>.
This isn't an innovation of the Novus Ordo. It is from the Missal of 1962.
In the Missal of 1962, the color of vigils are Violet, not Red. We can also be sure that Fr. de Sivry said the Mass of the Blessed Virgin on Saturdays, Salve Sancte Parens, if you watched the video carefully. The colour of the vestment is definitely wrong.
-
Oh Trento, stop this bull-####. Still trying to defend Fr. Couture? Unless you yourself is Fr. Couture.
When will you people stop lying! :facepalm: :facepalm:
There were lay witnesses at the priory whom I recalled posting here. I don't have to explain further if you insist that I am lying in defending Fr. Couture. Suits you.
-
Oh Trento, stop this bull-####. Still trying to defend Fr. Couture? Unless you yourself is Fr. Couture.
When will you people stop lying! :facepalm: :facepalm:
There were lay witnesses at the priory whom I recalled posting here. I don't have to explain further if you insist that I am lying in defending Fr. Couture. Suits you.
Trento, Chrstnoel1, here is another video of whose introduction I cannot make much sense of......
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Fr-Pfeiffer-THE-SHIP-IS-GOING-DOWN-Aug20th-2014
-
[Fr. de Sivry] wore red because that day, [August 9,] was the feast of the Vigil of St Lawrence.
How could I doubt that the above explanation was written by 'poche'?
Ah, yes. The "feast of a vigil"! I'd wonder if that weren't yet another innovation from your Novus Ordo, except that your Novus Ordo doesn't have vigils--at least not in the traditional sense. Not even for Christmas, Easter, Ascension, nor Pentecost. The first one has been reduced to a weekday "of the 4th Week of Advent"; for the latter 2, what would traditionally be vigils have been reduced to mere weekdays of an ordinally numbered "Week of Easter". It's your Novus Ordo that's notorious (among variously leaning traditional Catholics) for its current application of the word vigil to the Saturday-afternoon weekly masses beloved by fans of the Sunday-game-intensive (U.S.) National Football League.
Assuming that I can trust Kenneth G. Bath's Novus Ordo-only liturgical-calendar programming for RomCal.com, August 9 is the "Opt. Mem." of "Teresiae Benedicta of the Cross, V & M", for whom the liturgical color is green.
In my compilation for the calendar of 1960 (from a discarded mid1960s Ordo), which I would assume SSPX relies upon, August 9 is the III-class feast of "S. Ioann M. Vianney, C.", for whom the liturgical color is "alb.", i.e.: white!
But SSPX disagrees: August "9 Our Lady's Saturday", "4cl[ass]", which shows the liturgical color as a surprisingly yellowish off-white, but a shade of white nevertheless. For the patron-saint of priests, it shows August "8: St. John Mary Vianney", 3cl[ass]".[S] 
Lastly, there's Tr@ditio's "Calendar for the Traditional Roman Rite", August "9 Saturday[:] St. John Mary Vianney, C", for whose feast of the double minor class (i.e.: 4th rank), the liturgical color is white. Its calendar for that date does show, as alternatives of distinctly lesser priority, the "Vigil of St. Lawrence" (but see "violet", below), plus what I assume is at most a commemoration of "St. Romanus, M".St Lawrence was a martyr. Red is the color of martyrs.
Indeed it is, but only on their feast days. Even if the date under discussion in the SSPX calendar were primarily assigned to a vigil, I believe that an inspection of any traditional or semitraditional liturgical calendar will show that the liturgical color for any vigil is violet (e.g.: August 14: Vigil of the Assumption)--except for the traditional dual violet-then-white colors on Holy Saturday.
Can any of the former seminarians reading CathInfo point out anything liturgical that I might've overlooked?
-------
Note #: E.g.: <romcal.com/output/2014.html (http://romcal.com/output/2014.html)>.
Note [S]: <www.fsspx.org/en/liturgy/the-liturgy/liturgical-calendar/calendar/?month=aug&yr=2014 (http://www.fsspx.org/en/liturgy/the-liturgy/liturgical-calendar/calendar/?month=aug&yr=2014)>
(an artistic Web page, but an obnoxiously long Web address, what with the latter containing 3 combined instances of "liturgy" or "liturgical", and 2 instances of "calendar").
Note *: <www.traditio.com/calendar/cal1408.htm (http://www.traditio.com/calendar/cal1408.htm)>.
This isn't an innovation of the Novus Ordo. It is from the Missal of 1962.
In the Missal of 1962, the color of vigils are Violet, not Red. We can also be sure that Fr. de Sivry said the Mass of the Blessed Virgin on Saturdays, Salve Sancte Parens, if you watched the video carefully. The colour of the vestment is definitely wrong.
the purple vestments were probably stashed away in some kind of storage and very difficult to get. In that case the next best would have been red.
-
This is all silly. Has anyone here ever been on a Society pilgrimage?
Ever assisted at a pilgrimage Mass with the wrong color vestments, servers without a cassock and surplice, or on the roof-top of a hotel, or using the hotel bar as an altar, or be kickout of the church that had been reserved, or having to make do with a rock as an altar outdoorss? No. You all have no idea how often the Society priests have to improvise on such occasions.
It is highly likely that the scenario is: they asked for permission, were granted permission, and had to rush, using was available to them at the time, before the authorities changed their mind.
-
This is all silly. Has anyone here ever been on a Society pilgrimage?
Ever assisted at a pilgrimage Mass with the wrong color vestments, servers without a cassock and surplice, or on the roof-top of a hotel, or using the hotel bar as an altar, or be kickout of the church that had been reserved, or having to make do with a rock as an altar outdoorss? No. You all have no idea how often the Society priests have to improvise on such occasions.
It is highly likely that the scenario is: they asked for permission, were granted permission, and had to rush, using was available to them at the time, before the authorities changed their mind.
When you have to go through this much trouble just to try to mask what is an obvious case of slippage toward the Novus Ordo "gradualism" where the true norm is hidden behind the language of "exceptions," why bother? It's just too much mental gymnastics. Been there, done that, bud. Nice try, though. Spoken like a true PXer. Menzingen could use a few more like you.
-
This is all silly. Has anyone here ever been on a Society pilgrimage?
Ever assisted at a pilgrimage Mass with the wrong color vestments, servers without a cassock and surplice, or on the roof-top of a hotel, or using the hotel bar as an altar, or be kickout of the church that had been reserved, or having to make do with a rock as an altar outdoorss? No. You all have no idea how often the Society priests have to improvise on such occasions.
It is highly likely that the scenario is: they asked for permission, were granted permission, and had to rush, using was available to them at the time, before the authorities changed their mind.
When you have to go through this much trouble just to try to mask what is an obvious case of slippage toward the Novus Ordo "gradualism" where the true norm is hidden behind the language of "exceptions," why bother? It's just too much mental gymnastics. Been there, done that, bud. Nice try, though. Spoken like a true PXer. Menzingen could use a few more like you.
It isn't a mask, they have all been experienced and can be vouched for.
-
if they had been afforded the opportunity to offer Holy Mass, at the altar of st pius x in rome, surely it should have been a thought out and dignified occasion. instead it looked like a scramble, we have all been at pilgrimages where things may not have been as we would have wished, but the priest was always at the ready, and where did you ever go on a pilgrimage, that ladies would not have carried their mantillas.
-
+AMDG+
Upon speaking to several people about this incident I was informed that all the hoopla surrounding this is unnecessary because:
1) Any priest is allowed to say Mass at the Basilica, in fact this is done numerous times. In fact Fr. Pfeiffer or even Bp. Williamson can just walk in and literally start saying Mass, there are no provisions in place to stop any traditional priest from saying Mass.
2) Fr. Robinson 2 years ago, former pastor of St. Christopher's Mission, spoke about himself having said Mass there numerous times with permission from the head, and continues to say Mass there (I am assuming when he visits)
If the first statement is true, then that explains the second. And if it were true, then why wouldn't the SSPx priest be prepared? They would be expecting to have no hindrances, right?
That explains the two professional cameramen who were on pilgrimage with them who happened to have brought professional cameras, equipment and tripods to the event.
-
+AMDG+
Upon speaking to several people about this incident I was informed that all the hoopla surrounding this is unnecessary because:
1) Any priest is allowed to say Mass at the Basilica, in fact this is done numerous times. In fact Fr. Pfeiffer or even Bp. Williamson can just walk in and literally start saying Mass, there are no provisions in place to stop any traditional priest from saying Mass.
2) Fr. Robinson 2 years ago, former pastor of St. Christopher's Mission, spoke about himself having said Mass there numerous times with permission from the head, and continues to say Mass there (I am assuming when he visits)
If the first statement is true, then that explains the second. And if it were true, then why wouldn't the SSPx priest be prepared? They would be expecting to have no hindrances, right?
That explains the two professional cameramen who were on pilgrimage with them who happened to have brought professional cameras, equipment and tripods to the event.
1. When you say "hoopla...is unnecessary" I assume you refer to the hoopla on the official SSPX website. i.e., they "started it" as far as making a big deal out of it.
2. Your second point is well taken -- if any priest can say Mass there, why wasn't the SSPX priest prepared with more traditional vestments?
And if, for some reason, they had to end up using the Novus Ordo vestments, they *at least* shouldn't be broadcasting it to the entire SSPX Faithful as well as potential SSPX Faithful still in the Novus Ordo. They must want to accustom the former to Novus Ordo vestments, as well as make the latter feel "at home" and not threatened by the SSPX.
It just seems to fit into their "re-branding" and Modern Rome/Vatican II "glasnost" style overtures quite nicely.
-
+AMDG+
Upon speaking to several people about this incident I was informed that all the hoopla surrounding this is unnecessary because:
1) Any priest is allowed to say Mass at the Basilica, in fact this is done numerous times. In fact Fr. Pfeiffer or even Bp. Williamson can just walk in and literally start saying Mass, there are no provisions in place to stop any traditional priest from saying Mass.
2) Fr. Robinson 2 years ago, former pastor of St. Christopher's Mission, spoke about himself having said Mass there numerous times with permission from the head, and continues to say Mass there (I am assuming when he visits)
If the first statement is true, then that explains the second. And if it were true, then why wouldn't the SSPx priest be prepared? They would be expecting to have no hindrances, right?
That explains the two professional cameramen who were on pilgrimage with them who happened to have brought professional cameras, equipment and tripods to the event.
1. When you say "hoopla...is unnecessary" I assume you refer to the hoopla on the official SSPX website. i.e., they "started it" as far as making a big deal out of it.
2. Your second point is well taken -- if any priest can say Mass there, why wasn't the SSPX priest prepared with more traditional vestments?
And if, for some reason, they had to end up using the Novus Ordo vestments, they *at least* shouldn't be broadcasting it to the entire SSPX Faithful as well as potential SSPX Faithful still in the Novus Ordo. They must want to accustom the former to Novus Ordo vestments, as well as make the latter feel "at home" and not threatened by the SSPX.
It just seems to fit into their "re-branding" and Modern Rome/Vatican II "glasnost" style overtures quite nicely.
Those who seem unfazed are those attending Society Mass Centers, apparently they are under the impression that since Cardinal Ratzinger came to be elected, he has extended an open ended invitation to all SSPX priests when they are in Rome, that they may say Mass there at anytime.
I wonder sometimes why I never heard of this, and if this is the case how come they are not welcome in the Novus Ordo Churches? Are they seriously saying that they - SSPX - are welcome at St. Peter's Basilica, but not at St. Patrick's here in NYC? Someone should tell Bishop Dolan! And while they are at it, they should march alongside him at the St. Patrick's Day Parade!