The SSPX, The Confessional And The New Mass
You really should (I mean, I cannot force you to; but I encourage you to see this as a must) head to father Z and read the beautiful exchange he had with a SSPX priest about not only the Mass, but the V II Sacraments in general.
(Now I will patiently wait a couple of minutes until you have read all of it…)
I allow myself to notice the following:
- The SSPX speaks, very boldly, for the entire Society. And says, very boldly, that strange “attending the new Mass is a sin” talk is not the SSPX line, and would have caused a frightful shampoo even in the “old bad days”, when certain elements were still around.
Yours truly remarks that this has always been his position, too, and the way he has always understood the SSPX’s position; and that the occasional unfortunate, or very unfortunate, remarks coming from some corners of the SSPX must be read cum grano salis, and put in the context of an organisation that feels, not without reason, under siege by those who should defend the common faith. Besides, there is no denying until some years ago there were elements within the SSPX that were pushing a Rome=evil agenda, which is also not the SSPX position and sounds very Protestant to me. Whilst there is a lot of evil in Rome, it’s not Satan’s HQ, nor will it ever be.
2. The Novus Ordo mass is certainly valid, and it is certainly not a sin to attend it; but the entire “Spirit of V II” that goes with it – and which influences both the way the Mass is celebrated, and the way the priest steers his congregation – is such that it puts souls in danger, as (this is mine), they get exposed to a Kindergarten Mass together with Worse Than Kindergarten Theology, and the results are in front of all of us. Yours truly feels, in a word, vindicated from the accusation of “not caring enough for truth” raining on him every time he says to his readers that whilst it is much preferable to attend a TLM if they can, the NO Mass is certainly valid and they are not exempted from mass obligation merely because the priest is an idiot of dubious virility.
3. The SSPX recognises all of the other Sacraments, too. This means – shocking! – that they even recognise absolutions given by Jesuits!
All of the above must, as always, be read with a brain. It does not mean that the SSPX recognises the validity of a NO mass in which such abuses take place, that it is legitimate to doubt that the mass is valid. But your garden variety NO Mass is valid.
You will, however, notice this: that a conservative V II priest and a SSPX priest are, undoubtedly, both united on the same side; and whilst they might differ on a couple of issues, they recognise this reality in the same way as they recognise the distance separating both of them from heterodox or utterly heretical priests, bishops and cardinals.
The NO is not invalid, nor is it evil. But when the Church goes back to sanity, the NO will most certainly go.
M
Share this:
Posted on December 13, 2015, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, FSSPX, Traditional Catholicism and tagged SSPX. Bookmark the permalink. 11 Comments.
Mundabor's Blog 
Nonetheless, Fr. Z has a habit of raising SSPX hares providing the opportunity to snipe at The Society. The diocesan priest, who raised this particular hare, should consider the deportment of his diocesan confreres, relative to the Mass, before sniping at SSPX.
You mean, raising hairs? Yes, that particular priest wasn’t always very fortunate in his interventions concerning the SSPX. But one can see the affinities anyway.
M
The abolition of the New Order Mass cannot come fast enough for me. My children and I have suffered under its jackbooted treacly-ness.
The “sin” of attending the new mass was stated quite explicitly in the most recent clip from the SSPX (USA) instructional video series, unfortunately not a remote corner of the Society. While it was qualified with “for those who understand it to be harmful,” I have yet to see any clarification or retraction of the statement.
I suggest we arm ourselves with patience and apply common sense in the meantime.
M
Right,
“For those who understand it to be harmful”. Thus, it cannot be categorically called a sin, in the same way that fornication could, which is ALWAYS sinful. I fail to see the contradiction.
The problem here is that most Traditionalist will see that the NO is mediocre, and that a very bad NO can lead people away from the church. Thus, we have the problem of when a mass becomes “harmful”. Obviously it would depend on the exact meaning of the word “harmful”, but I would say that, say, Mass obligation persists even if the local priest is a first-rate idiot. I find the phrasing used in the website very unfortunate.
M
If the NO is inherently inferior to the Tridentine Mass (which it is), then ANY NO Mass will necessarily result in more people leaving the faith, than if they had never stopped going to the Tridentine Mass.
A very bad NO Mass will exacerbate this effect, but it will not change the nature of the fact that the NO Mass necessarily leads souls away from the Church, because it is inherently worse than what came before it.
“If the NO is inherently inferior to the Tridentine Mass (which it is), then ANY NO Mass will necessarily result in more people leaving the faith, than if they had never stopped going to the Tridentine Mass.”
Utter nonsense.
It’s like saying that if a Mercedes is inferior to a Rolls Royce, any Mercedes (or Hyunday, or even Fiat!) will result in more people stopping driving.
M
“the Problem of The Liturgical Reform – A Theological and Liturgical Study – The Society of St Pius X – Angelus Press (2001) in the forward of which Bishop fellay stated the new liturgy was a “rupture with tradition”. The book makes a very sound case for axing this poisonous liturgical deformation. Even Cardinal Koch said the NO was a rupture with tradition in 2013. It is totally deficient using the protestant liturgical paradigm for the post-conciliar ecumenical agenda.
This is besides the point.
This blog has probably dozen of posts asking for exactly the same thing: the axing of the NO.
M