True Faith
On an older blog post of mine the following comment was published. It is from the reader Akita-ette.
We have no SSPX, no Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter parishes where I live. We have one reverent NO parish at the Cathedral in the capitol city with ultra beautiful music but it is rather far from our home. Most weeks we must attend a local “Our Lady of Pizza Hut”. I tell my children that no matter how buffoonish the priest, no matter how insipid the music, no matter how questionable what is being preached from the pulpit, we go to Mass weekly to honor and thank God and to receive Him, body and blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist. I tell them no one has what we have in the Eucharist.
I wrote then, and repeat now:
T.H.A.T.
This, my dear readers, is Catholic Faith. Not the ranting of Sedevacantists. Not the fantasies about fantasy popes. Not the endless conspiracy theories about how Francis is kept on a parallel planet by evil advisers.
Bad Popes, buffoonish priests, and horrible encyclicals will pass. They might pass after us, but they will pass one day. We soldier on, and wait for the end of the punishment. Penance and prayer, not Pollyannism or quasi-autonomy from the Church, will take us out of the worst.
M
Share this:
Posted on June 20, 2015, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism. Bookmark the permalink. 12 Comments.
Mundabor's Blog 
“… No one has what we have in the Eucharist .”
True, but is some cases there has been room for doubt that we always have the Eucharist. This is know from 2 sources. First, a former nun’s account of a priest who did not use the proper words of consecration, creating a lot of anxiety among the nuns. .Second, from a reader’s question to a reputable priest in a reputable Catholic periodical several years ago. The reader stated the words that were pronounced at the consecration of a Mass and inquired as to whether or not the hosts in question were the actual Eucharist. The reader was advised that no, this was not a valid consecration, and also advised to make a spiritual communion under such circumstances. No mention was made as to whether or not any hosts were reserved for distribution at other Masses, perhaps by other priests.These were NO Masses, so at least the people heard and understood the language. If the Masses had been in Latin or in a modern language not known to the Mass attendee, the error which invalidated the consecration may not have been noticed.
A well educated Catholic will be able to discern when such a danger exists.
I would say this danger, which was probably far more spread in the Sixties, must be fairly rare now.
I can, in my experience, only remember one case.
M
The communion incident the former nun reports was in Brazil in 1983. The Periodical Q& A about the invalid consecration was in the USA in the 2000’s. Since so many in the pews do not believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, these things are not a concern to them. Other abuses I know of from a reputable priest are eucharistic ministers giving unconsecrated hosts from parish supply to patients in hospitals. (c. 2003) and a tabernacle break-in around the same time, as reported by an usher who suspected hosts ( no vessels missing) were stolen for re-sale for Satanic Masses.
Tis true. I know of several dedicated SSPX attenders who will seek out Mass (and it depends both on locations and the day) in the following order, basically where and how they can: i) SSPX “Resistance” Mass; ii) “Mainstream” SSPX Mass; iii) so-called “Ecclesia Dei” Mass at either ICKSP or FSSP locations; iv) so-called “Summorum Pontificum” Mass at local parishes or specially arranged Mass centres (e.g. LMS); v) which is admittedly very rare for them, but they will go if they need to – a “Novus Ordo” Mass.
All well and good, I suppose. But the maddening thing is that all but one of them simply will not receive Communion at anything other than either SSPX “Resistance” Mass or (I lose track of the labels) “Mainstream SSPX” Mass. For they’ve been told at some point (and I think I’m correct in stating that they said this came from a SSPX priest) not to receive Communion at “Modernist” Masses because they will be supporting the continuance of the “New Mass” (which is anything after 1962 as far as I can work out). Yet they do attend these Masses on the basis that something is better than nothing (sometimes, perhaps on a Holy Day, it genuinely is the only Mass they can get to, so they will). They insist – and it’s undoubtedly true – that they haven’t got an ounce of Sede-thinking in them. Francis is Pope, full stop. No questions. For good or bad. Yet they won’t receive Communion at any Mass they attend which bears the Missal name of any Pope after Pius XII.
I often wonder what would happen if they saw a Host dropped onto the floor and somebody was about to step on Christ. Would they rush as fast as possible to save Him? If they would, then surely they believe that the Host is Christ because He has still ensured that we have this this wondrous Gift (no matter how poorly we insult Him with dreadful liturgy at times). If they wouldn’t rush to save Him, then the point is proved that they believe the Mass is invalid, so why even bother attending? Of course they can argue that It isn’t obligatory to receive Communion at Mass, but that’s not their reasoning.
We’re in a mess and a trial for sure.
I think they would rush.
The position seems perfectly legitimate to me. Obligation to communion is once a year. If a devout catholic thinks that it furthers the cause of Christ not to receive communion at a second-class mass, more power to him. There is no disobedience in not wanting to take communion. Particularly if the motive is as noble as the restoration of sanity. mind, I do not say one should not receive communion. I say that I do not see in any problem in not wanting to, for the reasons stated above.
The important thins is, as you say, that they “do not have an ounce of Sedevacantism in them”.
M
There is a lot of wisdom in this lovely lady’s manifesto, though I can’t accept the suggestion that the SSPX are any kind of option for the loyal Catholic. And of course, in frequenting Our Lady of Pizza Hut she risks becoming a cafeteria Catholic.
They are a perfectly acceptable, perfectly Catholic option for anyone.
M
But it’s not the best option, is it. The canonical position of the SSPX is doubtful. Some say they are in schism, some not. But if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck….
I’m no hero. But all I want to do is what God needs me to do. I’m not interested in my own preferences. And right now, I feel that the best job I can do for God is to go to Mass, prayerfully, toting my Missal and rosary, beating my breast at the penitential act, bowing at the Et Incarnatus, receiving with piety. If someone else gets to see me and thinks… this guy believes this stuff…. Well, that’s good. But either way, I am prepared to endure. My preferences are not important. I am faithful to Holy Mother Church, no matter that I may think her despoiled and insulted by our current pastors.
I loathe the SSPX. They have selfishly walked away from the field of battle to pursue their own agenda (as the cheese-eating surrender monkey French are wont to do). In the process, they have weakened orthodox resistance by dividing it.
You loathe the SSPX.
That is your entire problem.
No, they have not divided anything. They have kept whole what had to be kept whole. May the Lord reward them in heaven for that.
M
Where would the Traditionalist movement be without the SSPX? We all owe Archbishop LeFebvre a debt of gratitude.
The SSPX is the last bastion of the faithful, because it has made the hard choices. Keep its apostolic succession going to create priests, and maintain its love and total commitment to Holy Mother Chruch in just obedience wherever possible. A tough balancing act inthis mosnter of a Chruch Crisis, which earns it attacks from all directions, from within and without. No easy task, often thankless (in the worldly sense), perilous as always. welcome to the Church Militant.
Couldn’t agree more, hristoroquen.
M