SSPX Position on the New Mass

[dmreed]

One could also say that the Novus Ordo is clearly evil as well.  On weeks when I do not have the TLM (about every other week), do you really think I am about to bring my family to the NO, where my children will surely be scandalized by the sick and evil practices and offenses committed there?  I would recommend to those who don't have access to the Traditional Liturgy to stay home rather than attend the Novus Ordo.  Am I a heretic?

I'm just saying that just because the ordinary form of the mass is the only form available to a person, does not void that person's holy obligation to attend mass.  If the extraordinary form is available to a person I strongly encourage them to attend as I have received many blessings praying the extraordinary mass.   But one's  holy obligation is not tied to either form of the mass.  Heck, one could go to another rite such as a Maronite mass, Greek Catholic, Chaldean, etc.  and fulfill their holy obligation if they so desired, but to espouse staying home just because the extraordinary form is not available when the ordinary form is readily available, is not right.

[neel]

One could also say that the Novus Ordo is clearly evil as well.  On weeks when I do not have the TLM (about every other week), do you really think I am about to bring my family to the NO, where my children will surely be scandalized by the sick and evil practices and offenses committed there?  I would recommend to those who don't have access to the Traditional Liturgy to stay home rather than attend the Novus Ordo.  Am I a heretic?

I'm just saying that just because the ordinary form of the mass is the only form available to a person, does not void that person's holy obligation to attend mass.  If the extraordinary form is available to a person I strongly encourage them to attend as I have received many blessings praying the extraordinary mass.   But one's  holy obligation is not tied to either form of the mass.  Heck, one could go to another rite such as a Maronite mass, Greek Catholic, Chaldean, etc.  and fulfill their holy obligation if they so desired, but to espouse staying home just because the extraordinary form is not available when the ordinary form is readily available, is not right.

You didn't answer his question.  Since your judgment of his orthodoxy will also apply to me (as I rather stay home then go Novus Ordo), I'm curious: Are NorthernTrad and I heretics?  Do you believe we're committing a mortal sin by not going to a sacrilegious "mass?"

[dmreed]

You didn't answer his question.  Since your judgment of his orthodoxy will also apply to me (as I rather stay home then go Novus Ordo), I'm curious: Are NorthernTrad and I heretics?  Do you believe we're committing a mortal sin by not going to a sacrilegious "mass?"

I myself don't have the authority to judge whether one form of the mass or the other is "sacrilegious"; to do so would make me no different than John Q. Protestant down the street who claims the same authority when he wakes up one day and opens up his own evangelical, non-denominational church under his "ministry", as so often happens in this country.  So I have to disagree with your original premise that the ordinary mass is sacrilegious.  How can I separate those who hate the Mass in all its forms whether they be Masons, Islamists, Zionists, Communists. etc.? 

[HMiS]

I'm just saying that just because the ordinary form of the mass is the only form available to a person, does not void that person's holy obligation to attend mass. If the extraordinary form is available to a person I strongly encourage them to attend as I have received many blessings praying the extraordinary mass. But one's holy obligation is not tied to either form of the mass. Heck, one could go to another rite such as a Maronite mass, Greek Catholic, Chaldean, etc. and fulfill their holy obligation if they so desired, but to espouse staying home just because the extraordinary form is not available when the ordinary form is readily available, is not right.

I do stay at home if the only "form" or "rite" available is the Novus Ordo Missae.

It is not like Roman Catholics of Tradition want to stay at home, many drive 1,000s of kilometres per month merely for the traditional Roman Rite Mass, and it is not like I would not attend a Byzantine Rite Catholic or Maronite Rite Mass nearby, but there are none near me, as far as I know. Only Eastern Orthodox schismatics and Syriac monophysites.

[AdoramusTeChriste]

You didn't answer his question.  Since your judgment of his orthodoxy will also apply to me (as I rather stay home then go Novus Ordo), I'm curious: Are NorthernTrad and I heretics?  Do you believe we're committing a mortal sin by not going to a sacrilegious "mass?"

I myself don't have the authority to judge whether one form of the mass or the other is "sacrilegious"; to do so would make me no different than John Q. Protestant down the street who claims the same authority when he wakes up one day and opens up his own evangelical, non-denominational church under his "ministry", as so often happens in this country. 

Presumably you have the right use of reason and are therefore able to make judgments. Authority has nothing to do with it. Furthermore, since Traditional Catholics absolutely do not deny any dogma of our Holy Faith, it is unconscienable for you to make the comparison to protestantism.

So I have to disagree with your original premise that the ordinary mass is sacrilegious.  How can I separate those who hate the Mass in all its forms whether they be Masons, Islamists, Zionists, Communists. etc.? 

Perhaps you could study the issues in depth before you start condemning faithful Catholics. There is an excellent page found on Vox's website, click here.

[karyn_anne]

The SSPX has no official position re anything! It's just a collection of purists, refugees and rebels, nothing more or less, and they don't even pretend to have any ultimate authority to state what "the SSPX position" is - in fact, they enjoy the multiplicity of opinions, so long as they are united in their opposition to the regular practising Church. This is why they are considered "schismatic" by the Church - not for letter-of-the-law legal reasons, but because they are essentially protest-ant in a more serious way than most protestants are these days, and they individually (or in small groups) "choose" what they want to believe about "true Catholicism" , which is the essence (etymologically at least) of "heresy".

In short, there IS NO SSPX POSITION on the NOM! There is no SSPX position about anything, except that the current Church is bad. Easy to understand really, so long as you let yourself. Whether or not that one united position is true is up to God. Personally, from what I've experienced of the SSPX crowd, I'm putting my money on the Church to be in some way more right than the "motley crew" of the SSPX, sincere as they may be.  

Stop insulting the SSPX in such a childish and accusing manner.

SSPX parishoners do not join SSPX for the sake of being 'rebels' or to oppose the Holy Church. Most of us struggled for a very long time between being with the majority in the NOM councillar/diocesan churches or going to SSPX (amidst friends accusing us of being schismatic or disobedient). All we wanted was for us to be able to live the holy faith as the saints lived it, and for most of us, the SSPX provides not just the TLM but also a way of how to live as a traditional catholic (through catechism, the Sacraments, a strong network and close relationship of support with one another etc)

Never did we say that the current Church is bad. To say so would be to label all the clergy and all doctrine as so, which is the view of many actual protestants or that of the true rebel. It is only on modernism and liberalism (as manifested most commonly through liturgical abuses and the NOM) which we are against.

How dare anyone call the SSPX as being more protestant than an actual protestant. What a blind insult and a prejudice. I challenge anyone who supports this view to look at the cafeteria and NOM catholics who remain within the mainstream and compare them to the SSPX priests and faithful. Let his or her eyes be thus forth opened, for the group which has kept the faith as it was and were, and actually followed it, is very clearly the latter group.

[Clare]

SSPX parishoners do not join SSPX for the sake of being 'rebels' or to oppose the Holy Church. ...

In fact, we don't "join" it at all. We aren't initiated into it, nor do we have to pledge allegiance to it.

We go to Mass! Anyone can turn up, no questions asked!

[littleway]

The problem with arguing anything for or against the SSPX is that it's impossible to define exactly what "the SSPX" means in a real, practical sense any more. Is "the SSPX" Archbishop LeFebvre? The Bishops? Is it the parishioners? Is it a system of belief, an organisation? What exactly is it in a practical sense these days? I would argue, much as people won't like it, that it's impossible to pin down. Archbishop LeFebvre himself often contradicted himself, the Bishops aren't united, the parishioners include a wide spectrum of beliefs that range from orthodox and truly Catholic to heretical and sedevacantist, and it's hard to have an organisation without a leader or genuine hierarchy to organise it.

So, with this qualification, let me apologize firstly to those who attend SSPX chapels in good faith and out of love for the Faith, but also restate my claim that the SSPX has no "official position" re anything. This is what causes all the problems. Comparisons with the regular Church are irrelevant to what I'm saying. People are trying to find out what the SSPX position re the NOM is, but are finding it impossible to do so - you can see the multiple opinions and contradictory advice that different people have received just by reading through the thread. People will choose the opinion/ advice that they think is wisest or which best suits them. Ironically, they have that freedom of choice!

[littleway]

A couple more qualifications to my original off-the-cuff and admittedly pretty uncharitable post! I'm not saying the SSPX is in schism, I'm saying that it is "considerd to be" in schism, LEGAL issues aside, in a general way. And this is because the one thing that seems to unite those involved to whatever degree with the SSPX is their opposition to the practising Church, whatever the reasons or degree of this opposition may be and whether or not the opposition is fair or in good faith. Formally, the Church has to distinguish between the Bishops and the priests and parishioners, again because of the difficulty in defining exactly what "the SSPX" means, but obviously most Bishops would say, generally, "they are schismatics". Most wouldn't go into the fine distinctions, much as they should - they would just say "they are schismatics."

Also, when I said they are "more protest-ant than most protestants these days" I meant that most protestants these days aren't as antagonistic toward the Church as they used to be, and are in fact less antagonistic than many, probably most, of those involved with the SSPX. You could say this is a sign that the Church has watered itself down so much that there is no reason for antagonism any more, but personally I don't like the usually over-the-top "protests" against the practising Church that I have usually heard from SSPX Bishops, priests or parishioners, and see it as a bad thing. That's irrelevant to the thread though. I only mentioned that originally as an extension of why they are considered to be in schism. I meant that they seem more divisive and antagonistic toward the Church than most protestants these days.

Re the "rebel" thing, I wasn't calling everyone rebels - I also included "purists and refugees", nasty as it was for me to say it so curtly. I could say it in a nicer way, but I'd mean essentially the same thing any way!

Finally, a point that is relevant to some extent - individuals can be in schism, whether or not the "group" that they associate with is. It goes back to what the Church has always said re the SSPX - if you go too far into some of the more extreme ideas promulgated by some within the SSPX, from the top down, then you are likely to find yourself in schism eventually.

So it goes back to the problem that there is no official SSPX position - just a variety of opinions that people are free to choose from.

[Quo_Vadis_Petre]

I'm sorry, too, for being a bit too harsh with my replies. And I do see what you're saying. And it sums up the situation well, I believe.

Well, at least in the SSPX chapel I am in, the people there and the pastor himself definitely don't recommend the New Mass, but don't condemn those who have to go to the Indult in any way or even the New Mass (through ignorance or lack of better alternative). That was my impression anyway.