SSPX Position on the New Mass

[JamesD]

 Last year I attended a sspx retreat. During one of the conferences the priest mentioned that it is a venial sin to attend a novus ordo mass that is said reverently and according to the rubrics and  a mortal sin to attend one where there is liturgical abuses present.

 I have difficulty understanding this. I 'm wondering if he means this applies to a Traditional catholic who would be sinning by going to a novus ordo mass because they have already been given the grace to see it's wrong.  That same standard doesn't apply to a novus ordo catholic who regularly attends the new mass because they are in invincible ignorance about the whole issue ? ?

[AdoramusTeChriste]

I have heard that there is some disunity in the SSPX on certain positions, maybe this is one of them.

Apparently so!

[AdoramusTeChriste]

 Last year I attended a sspx retreat. During one of the conferences the priest mentioned that it is a venial sin to attend a novus ordo mass that is said reverently and according to the rubrics and  a mortal sin to attend one where there is liturgical abuses present.

 I have difficulty understanding this. I 'm wondering if he means this applies to a Traditional catholic who would be sinning by going to a novus ordo mass because they have already been given the grace to see it's wrong.  That same standard doesn't apply to a novus ordo catholic who regularly attends the new mass because they are in invincible ignorance about the whole issue ? ?

Hmmm. I hadn't picked it apart by degrees, but I can see how it could be a mortal sin to attend a liturgy where liturgical abuse is present. The three things necessary for mortal sin are grave matter, full knowledge of the wrong, and full consent. I avoid the NOL in my diocese because even the conservative ones are detrimental to the Faith and I refuse to let my kids be exposed to it. But if I went to a different diocese then would full knowledge still apply? I couldn't claim invincible ignorance because I would at least have an inkling that abuse could occur...

*getting a headache*

[Catholicmilkman]

What Father Scott is saying here is what Neel said. The SSPX says that it is sinful (here Fr. says venial at best) for a Traditional Catholic to attend the Novus Ordo. Not only is he trying to bind people with sin for going to a Mass given yo us by the Church, he's also confirming my point that the SSPX believes the Church can give us evil.

on, for example), and even if it is

the only Mass available

Nowhere has the SSPX ever said that it believes the Church can give us evil, that would be utterly ridiculus, Oloc06. Why would a group of priests and religious who say they want to do only good by being a part of a holy Church believe that that Church can do or give evil? The website for SSPX in the United State clearly says that they believe that the Novus Ordo was not given by the Church: http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novusordo.htm Read #6 of B.

[Ourladyofconsolation06]

Nowhere has the SSPX ever said that it believes the Church can give us evil, that would be utterly ridiculus, Oloc06. Why would a group of priests and religious who say they want to do only good by being a part of a holy Church believe that that Church can do or give evil? The website for SSPX in the United State clearly says that they believe that the Novus Ordo was not given by the Church:

Let me ask you then. How does the Church give us a Discipline like a Mass? If the Novus Ordo wasn't given by the Church, then why was is officially promulgate by Paul VI and made the, in motu terms, ordinary rite? All processes where followed. Paul VI, as we examined in the other thread, used the same binding language that Quo Primum did. If Quo Primum came from the Church, then the Novus Ordo did.

[HMiS]

OofC6,

The Novus Ordo Missae can also by its occasions, its creation's history (with clear Protestant tendencies, including the first non-approved Nr. 7 of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal, which contained a protestant definiton of the "Mass or the Lord's Supper", but was changed after the Ottaviani and Bacci objections), and its disciplinary pastoral practice in 99.9% of all cases be unacceptable and practically tending towards abuse and evil, because it actively does not mention several constitutive aspects of the being of the Holy Mass, which is unbloody renewal of the sacrifice of the Cross, in this propitiatory sacrifice of praise and expiation.

I think the SSPX means this by its declaring attendance not allowed. This she also means by the fact that the New Mass "favours heresy", and not itself teaches heresy.

It is a difficult question though, I admit that.

[Clare]

My MIL attends the NOM, but occasionally comes to Mass with us. The SSPX priest told her that she is always welcome. He did NOT tell her that she would be in mortal sin if she ever went back.

Quite.

I understand that, at SSPX funerals and weddings, the celebrant will invite any Catholic relatives and guests to receive Communion (provided they are in a state of grace). That includes Novus Ordo Catholics. That implies that Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo are capable of being in a state of grace!

However, I also know that SSPX clergy will not encourage attendance at the New Rite. In fact they discourage it. But not to the extent of condemning those who do go of being in mortal sin.

[dmreed]

Any Catholic, especially those who are ordained, who advises another Catholic to stay at home if no SSPX masses are available rather than attending a Novus Ordo mass, is committing severe heresy and should be exposed for this.  Such views clearly are evil and not Catholic.

[Quo_Vadis_Petre]

Rome knows all about the position of the SSPX concerning the Novus Ordo (and even some of their priests), and She refuse to call them heretics, as of right now at least.

[dmreed]

Today at 12:30 PM
Quo_Vadis_Petre	Rome knows all about the position of the SSPX concerning the Novus Ordo (and even some of their priests), and She refuse to call them heretics, as of right now at least.

Why are radical SSPXers logic so Clintonian? 
Rome's position on advocacy of abdicating on one's holy obligation to attend Sunday mass under the sole justification that the only form being offered locally is the ordinary form is  absolutely clear: heresy, plain and simple.  The Church recognizes both the ordinary and extraordinary as valid forms of the Roman rite and one's holy obligation under the Church is not to attend one particular form or the other, but rather the  Holy Mass,  (in whichever form it is being offered.) To advocate any differently is heresy.  One can proclaim all the advantages of one form of the mass versus the other, but an ordinary mass is just as valid as an extraordinary mass (assuming it is celebrated in a way truly intended by the Church, free from liturgical abuses) and will fulfill ones holy obligation with no caveats; to say otherwise is a lie.