Sunday, December 22, 2019

SSPX And Austrilian Bishops - Two Different Errors

A few days ago, while writing about some curmudgeonly "rad-trads", I forgot to mention one of the most egregious - and sinful - things that have spewed out of the mouths of some of them.  As a rule, they attend Mass in the Extraordinary Form, often making great sacrifices to do so.  I too will attend those Masses, but not exclusively.  I understand the impetus, for often at the NO masses, there are attitudes that are way too casual; sometimes it gets worse than that.

However, some take it to sinful extremes.  I was in another facebook discussion with some of them.  They stated that because the NO mass was so bastardized by Vatican II, it cannot be considered a valid Mass.  Therefore, according to them, if one cannot attend an EF mass, one no longer has the obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation.  For their "authority", they cite this from the SSPX website.  I've often wondered how SSPX could be considered at variance from the Magisterium.  My question has been answered.

Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment.  Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid.  No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein.  Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse?  The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin.  Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable.

The word "excuse" brings me to another point.  Excuse, or defense of evil done, is one of the nine ways of cooperating with mortal sin.  So is "counsel", such as that evidenced in the SSPX screed.  On the face of things, it seems that this SSPX priest needs to recant and get to confession asap.

Now let's look at what some Austrilian bishops are doing.  They have in fact advocated sin against the First Commandment by falsely stating that Catholics can also be Freemasons.  Besides the fact that Freemasonry is a major player in the desconstruction of our Church, they advocate false beliefs that are antithetical to Christianity.  In that last link is a video going into more detail about Freemasonry.  These bishops are also cooperating with mortal sin, thus incurring guilt attached to that sin.

So what might be the difference between the SSPX and these Austrilian bishops?  Probably not that much.  One the one hand, mortal sin against the Third Commandment is being touted; on the other hand, it's mortal sin against the First Commandment.  Both have the potential of damning a soul to hell.  Both agencies are being duped by the devil into doing his work.  Satan wants Catholics to leave the Church, and he doesn't care whether they exit "stage left" or "stage right".  Let's be wary of either tendency.

60 comments:

  1. The Novus Ordo Mass is "valid" if the Consecration is in fact done properly -- the relative grace available thru it as compared to the Mass God gave the Saints for us-- the Traditional Latin Mass -- is much less. Our Lady forced the Demons to admit this in an Exorcism she oversaw in 1977-78 where they also admitted their agents-- Masonic infiltrated in Cardinals were responsible for this and the other Vatican 2 "reforms" from Hell.

    The fact that Archbishop Bugnini was an infiltrated in Mason is stated in Father Charles Murr's recent book The Godmother -- he documents it was for this reason Bugnini was exiled to Iran at the height of his power and he names names as to who succeeded in getting him removed.

    Pecorrelli's List names well over 100 infiltrated Masons into the Vatican--Pecorelli was murdered soon after releasing it and it has never been disputed as to validity.

    Saint Gertrude was allowed to see the Mass in Heaven, that will be the Mass for Eternity, it is the Traditional Latin Mass and it is not the Bugnini/Masonic version. Our Lady also forced the Demons to state that no one should be told to not go to the NOMass, as it is valid for one's obligation, but if the other true Mass is available and one can attend -- one always should do so.

    The Demons also discussed the upcoming Chastisement(s) which we all will be experiencing soon-- the Masonic/Communist infiltration of the Church has been a complete disaster for humanity--only God can right it and that is what is about to happen--there will be much suffering and already the Demons stated back then many are in Hell who would not be if the Masons had not switched in their grace stripped Mass for God's Mass.God bless all!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. If the only Mass available is a n.o. Mass, one must attend. It is NOT acceptable to skip Mass.

      Delete
    2. Suppose for the sake of argument that the priest has an effigy of pachamama on or about the alter yet says the proper words of Consecration during the Mass? Suppose the priest changes the words for the consecration of the wine but not the bread? Suppose there are prayers invoking various spirits and idols during the prayers of petition or offertory? At what point would one's mere presence be sanctioning blasphemy and sacrilege? Tough tough call.

      Delete
    3. Read closely my third paragraph for the answer to these questions.

      Delete
    4. You wrote in your third paragraph:

      "Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid." (What ordinary Catholic in the pew will be so au fait with these various theological proscriptions?) and "No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein." This strikes me as vague in the extreme particularly the 'simply because there are abuses therein' part; lacking as it does a working definition of the operative word 'abuse'.

      Delete
    5. I read the third paragraph. Sounds like you are primed for a Pachamama/ Amazon Synod "mass" as long as the Church approves the rubrics and the words of the consecration are minimally operative....we've seen how "Conservatives" can adopt themselves ever-changing goal posts.

      Delete
    6. My! How we deviate from the main point of the post to justify violation of the Third Commandment. I agree much of the NO is lackluster at best. But you and others seem to be suggesting the worst scenario possible to justify the eschewment of a NO mass even if no other Mass is available. Truth be told, should pachamama come to my parish, I'll drive to another Mass - even if the only other Mass to which I can drive is NO.

      Delete
    7. It's not a deviation at all - I'm taking your argument to its logical conclusion. There was talk of an "Amazon Rite" based on the synod...if following the rubrics (no matter how awful) and a valid consecration are all that matter, then you have no real reason to drive to another parish.....unless such a mass would be injurious to your faith.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is your specific objection with what I wrote? If it is factually incorrect, please advise. However, the fact that this has been the case with SSPX for a while actually confirms my statements.

      Delete
    2. All, the commenter called DRVSVS wrote "In response to the fact that the SSPX saying this is news to you only now, even though this has been the explicit argument that they have made for decades, shows an ponderable ignorance on your part. You have no business writing this article and are clearly over your head." I regret the error that caused the original comment to be deleted, but have reproduced it verbatum, even the grammar errors. My reply above followed what he/she said.

      Delete
    3. "So what might be the difference between the SSPX and these Australian bishops? Probably not that much."

      What an absolutely ridiculous statement....you really are in over your head.

      Delete
    4. It is both ludicrous and unfair to equate the SSPX with Modernist Bishops who likely care little for the salvation of their flock. The SSPX not only practices, but has PRESERVED, the same Faith of our forebears, which they would simply recognize as "Catholicism".
      The N.O. and Vatican II have done tremendous damage and have no doubt caused the loss of souls; "Conservatives" though find it much easier to point the finger at "rad trads" rather than addressing the real problem.

      Delete
    5. Regarding the achievements of the TLM, I agree. The issue is what happens on Sunday when the TLM is not available. Is it that hard to stay on topic?

      Delete
  3. Edison Frisbee, would you please repeat your comment? I cannot find it now - apologies.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey Mate spell Australian properly for starters,secondly I am not surprised at this ,as our Bishops Conference-except for ArchBishop Porteous-are a weak bunch of Hierarchs .They have been cowed by the Pell case and the Marriage Equality Act.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This attack is yet another reason why Trads cannot have nice things. We have the most wicked Pope in history and you decide to call for a circular firing squad. You are way out of line here. If a Byzantine Catholic cannot attend his Rite, he is not obligated to attend a Latin Rite. The "EF" is another rite. It may be barely valid, but it has also destroyed the faith of millions of people and is very dangerous, particularly to children. Stop picking fights with the Society. They are the only reason you have any Tradition left in the Church. Just say "thank you" and be on your way. Unite the Clans!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The EF and NO are both Roman rites, so your Byzantine analogy is really apples to oranges. I do agree Pope Francis is extremely problematic but that doesn't excuse our own deficiencies. I'm all for "uniting the clans" as long as that "unity" doesn't involve any of us turning blind eyes to our own mortal sins.

      Delete
    2. Despite B16's sophistry calling it two forms of the same rite, (something he basically made up in Summorum Pontificum) it is obvious that only one is the Roman Rite and the other is a Protestant committee's on the spot, banal creation. My Byzantine analogy was apt. The real Roman Rite needs an Ordinariate Style global diocese headed by Bishop Schneider and then we can dispense with your argument that we are obligated to visit the Novus Ordo. My six children have been raised exclusively in the TLM, why would they have any obligation to visit a rite they have no knowledge of?

      Delete
    3. Oh, I don't know. Maybe because of the Third Commandment? Or the Church's First Precept perhaps? Again, I am talking of a situation in which a TLM isn't available but an orthodox NO is.

      Delete
  6. Looks like Bishop Athanasius Schneider will have to join that SSPX priest in going to confession - he says essentially the same thing in the Life Site video below, even acknowledging a valid consecration:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azhqg4nUVqs&t=239s Time mark 35:40

    Non-Trad "Conservatives" always seem to reserve their fire for the SSPX, as if they are the "real problem" in the Church today...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I listened to the clip, and also a little bit before and after. He is speaking of modernist priests and liturgical abuses. He suggests traveling to a decent Mass. I have heard of people traveling 2 hours each way to Mass. God bless them for their fidelity. I must say that I did hear the hint of skipping Mass in his talk. I respectfully disagree with him on that point.

      Delete
    2. Let's be honest, it was more than a "hint'....

      Delete
    3. Hopefully you can now acknowledge the double standard you are applying....the SSPX merits a full tirade for "advocating mortal sin".....Bishop Schneider says essentially the same thing and you say it's "regrettable" and you "respectfully disagree."
      Why such animus towards the SSPX?

      Delete
    4. I have no animus against SSPX. They do, however, appear to make a habit of advocating disdain for NO Masses to the point of telling people to skip Mass on Sundays. I am hoping that the archbishop's gaffe was merely a momentary lapse and hope that I am not disappointed. Even with the SSPX, I hope that the council to break the Third Commandment is not emblematic of all of them, but am wary since that council is on their website.

      Delete
    5. Why shouldn't the SSPX have disdain for the NO? Look at its fruit. Somewhere in the range of 70 % of self-identified Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence. Lex orandi, lex credendi. That statistic alone should tell us that the NO is spiritual poison.

      Delete
    6. Because the SSPX is not the final arbiter for what fulfills the Sunday obligation. The notion that one can skip Mass simply because there is no TLM available is the real spiritual poison.

      Delete
  7. The NO was once an occasion of sin for me (thoughts of torture and murder of those responsible). Now the suffering is offered up for the souls in Purgatory

    ReplyDelete
  8. Is this serious? Trads know the obligation better than your demeaning analysis...heck they even know they can go to an Anglican rite church whose Mass is 100% more reverent than your bottom of the barrel, lowest common denominator NO Mass. I guess there were no other papal scandals to write about today...you chose one that demonstrates your narrow-minded bias ...PS Trads also know not to worship false idols, can you say the same?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unless rubrics are grossly violated, Our Lord is present at that "lowest common denominator NO mass". Would you disdain to be with Him (providing there's no decent alternative)?

      Delete
    2. I will now add to my earlier reply. The fact that some "trads" are saying that simply because a TLM isn't available, then one can just skip Mass even though there are decent NO Masses around, IS ITS OWN DAMNED SCANDAL! For heaven's sake! They are sinning against the Third Commandment and counseling others to do the same. By the way - what false idol do you think I'm worshipping?

      Delete
  9. It all depends. How displeasing is the novus ordo (in and of itself) to God? Estimates vary. And how abusive and sacrilegious is the novus ordo within driving distance? And how rapidly will the local novus ordo destroy tbe faith of my children?

    One cannot simply declare that attendance at just ANY novus ordo is obligatory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please reread the third paragraph. I made mention of that real possibility.

      Delete
    2. Thank you, Father. We are dispensed from our obligation when seriously ill, although bound to Sunday prayer at home. The NO makes us ill i our soul and mind, it slowly leeches the faith from our Catholic bones. There is no such thing as an absolute under all conditions. If I am not bound by some physical maladieds, is it not even more serious when the malady threatens the faith itsrlf?

      Delete
    3. If your faith can be "leeched from Catholic bones" simply becaue you find yourself at a NO Mass, be that Mass ever so faithful to rubrics, that only speaks of the effete quality of your faith. And that sentence of yours - "there is no such thing as an absolute under all conditions". Reread that! Do you understand the inherent heresy of that? Are you saying that God's words are not absolute under all conditions? So the Third Commandment and the Church's First Precept are not absolute? Actually, I think you're not the only one commenting here who holds that. For obvious reasons, I am taking a screen shot of that comment.

      Delete
  10. I've been a supporter of the SSPX for over 30 years, but I've never really subscribed to the "don't go to the N.O. Mass" meme. While I don't disregard the warning that it could endanger one's Faith, I believe the particular N.O. parish (whenever any SSPX or other Trad Mass is unavailable) would have something to do with that. Obviously, stay away from an all-out progressive/liberal/alphabet-soup parish. But there are good, Orthodox N.O. parishes to be had, with solid Catholic homilies & just as good or better priests giving them. Yes, there is a lot you have to tolerate, but, no where is it written that you have to actively participate in the handshake or gift-giving, especially as a sometime visitor. The important thing is, to me, fulfilling your Sunday obligation, a valid Consecration (I always listen the words are correct) Confession & Holy Communion. If I need to attend an N.O. parish (I currently do not, however, but have had to in the past) for a Sunday Mass, I have no problem doing so, as long as it is fully Orthodox. If you find out it is not, then just pick up and leave, go home, say the Rosary, read the Sunday propers and meditate for 30 minute or so.

    I've recommended before that every TLM-attending Catholic should find the most conservative N.O. parish in their city to attend if it ever becomes necessary. The bottom line: if a TLM Mass goer is so weak in their Traditional Faith that attending an N.O. Mass once or twice a month (or even every other month for that matter) is a danger, then perhaps they shouldn't be attending a TLM Mass.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid."
    And how exactly am I supposed to check on that? I just want to sit quietly and look at the stained glass. I want to receive on the tongue
    because my hands are calloused and I have engine grease under my fingernails. I can point out problems with the rubrics at virtually every N.O. service I attend. Can somebody please tell me what sin to confess if I find that this whole Vatican 2 sham and free-masonic queer infiltration since 1958 has now established an invalid mockery of the Catholic Church in Rome and I believe
    that the Papal thrown is currently vacant? What sin? Which one? Yes I do still attend my local N.O., as a spy in a foreign land, and I pray for the roof to cave in. The SSPX would do well to simply discourage folks from receiving communion at N.O. services and suggest they make at least an annual pilgrimage to receive absolution and communion with a priest that only offers the Mass as codified by Pius V. Pretty simple. I love it, advice on where not to go from a guy who needs a ride from the airport every week. (inside joke)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How are you supposed to check on it? Do you have a missal? If not, are there missaletts in the pews? Again the point of my post is that if the consecration is done properly, it is still a valid Mass. If there is a valid Mass nearby, there is no excuse whatsoever to skip Mass. Just think - you might be the only one offering Jesus any worship at that Mass. Would you deny Him that, or a worthy reception of Communion simply because the NO offends you?

      Delete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please stay on topic. Any other deviations will result in comments not being published. My blog, my rules.

      Delete
  13. The NO may offend us but more importantly it is an offense against God.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The NO may offend us but more importantly it is an offense against God.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Please, stop spreading the confusion. Be quite, pray, and consult appropriate popes, canon lawyers, and Theologians. You may begin with Denzinger and Ludwig Ott.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The confusion lies with those who think that it is acceptable to skip Mass altogether rather than attend a NO, be that NO done ever so correctly. It is in fact a mortal sin.
      But if it's confusion that you and some others here want, consider this. Many priests offering the TLM, particularly younger ones, were ordaining using the NO rite of ordination. Do you consider their ordinations to be valid and acceptable to God?

      Delete
    2. You recommend excellent sources in Denzinger and Ludwig Ott! Then too there is the superb Catechism of the Council of Trent. For children the Baltimore Catechism is still available.

      Delete
  16. We went to the NO for 22 yrs. The Protestantism in it caused our children to lose the Faith (even after 12 yrs of Catholic schools). Communion in the hand, among other "abuses" makes a child (and majority of adults according to recent polls) lose the Faith. To subject a child to that is akin to child neglect. If we are traveling and cannot go to TLM we do as our SSPX priest said to do: Readings, Family Rosary, Spiritual Communion, and Scripture for at least an hour which fulfills the Sunday obligation

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It does not. We all know that NO priests can and do err. That being the case, why on earth should we think that SSPX priests are immune from error?

      Delete
  17. Perhaps I missed this in the comments ... but ...

    Let's be clear - this is not about the Third Commandment - which requires us to keep the Lord's day. Which can be done in number of ways and is guaranteed by attending Mass.

    This <<< is >>> about the first precept of the Catholic Church - which requires us to "attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation".

    There are a couple of problems with your article.

    First, the SSPX asserts that the Novus Ordo is valid with the normal conditions (form, matter and intention). What they do claim is that the Novus Ordo Mass, valid as it may be, constitutes a danger to the faith of those attending.

    Regarding your 'grin and bear it' approach.

    Second, validity is not the only criteria, the liturgy has a great importance and effect on those present. For example, you could attend a valid 'black mass', but it would obviously be sinful to do so.

    If the Novus Ordo Missae which you are attending, contains various abuses or worse - then you have an obligation to leave or protest the abuse right then and there. Otherwise you are potentially committing a sin of omission. If you have children with you, then you have to consider the effect on them and their faith as well as your own.

    Let's say that you find a perfect Novus Ordo Missae celebrated as promulgated.



    Meaning, Ad Orientem, in Latin, with no altar girls and no lay Eucharistic Ministers, with all the "smells and bells" etc.



    Then the argument is lesser but I would hold still applicable because the exclusions from the Novus Ordo Missae are comparable to reciting the Creed without the Filioque. While not explicitly heretical, it still leaves unsaid something that should said.

    P^3

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A "valid black mass"? Defective intention would be present and invalidate that, so toss out that analogy. The SSPX's claim that the NO is inherently a danger to the attendees' faith is, at most, their opinion. Nowhere is their basis for any assumption that their opinion is sacrosanct, beyond question. What is a "danger to the faith" is the abstension from Mass if there are orthodox Masses around, be they NO or TLM.

      Delete
    2. Before going into opinions, how about we confirm that:
      A. We are discussing the first precept of the Catholic Church
      B. In principle attendance at any Mass (NO or TLM) where there is sacrilege, heresy and other dangers to the Faith is not required on a Sunday or other Holy Day of Obligation.

      P^3

      Delete
    3. Depends on what constitutes "danger to the Faith" versus "going against overly delicate sensibilities".

      Delete
  18. It appears they have a pretty good basis for their "opinion" that the NO is a danger to the Faith.

    Mass attendance has gone from something like 65% to 24% under the Novus Ordo....and the percentage of Catholics who go to Mass AND actually believe in the Real Presence is even less. And don't ignore the precipitous drop in vocations...(except in...wait for it....Traditional orders).

    "Lex orandi, lex credendi" isn't some trite cliche.

    Still awaiting your equally robust condemnation of Bishop Schneider.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't hold your breath. I am praying that this was a momentary lapse on his part. However, the SSPX's lapse is more than momentary.

      Delete
  19. Let's handle the first assertion first.

    The intention is to do what the Church does. In confecting the Eucharist all that is required is: A. Proper form (words), B. Matter (Bread & Wine), C. Intention (to confect the Eucharist) D. A validly ordained priest.

    The intention to commit sacrilege after the fact is an intention that is separate from the act.

    More here: http://tradicat.blogspot.com/2017/04/form-matter-and-intention.html


    ReplyDelete