Phrases that bother SSPX supporters

[Stubborn]

However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful. For the end does not justify the means. Consequently, although it is a good thing to want to assist at Mass and satisfy one’s Sunday obligation, it is never permitted to use a sinful means to do this. To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin. It is opportunism. Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available.  [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]

(http://sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__traditional.htm)

Directly from the web page of the United States district of the SSPX, written by Fr. Peter R. Scott, when he was district superior. I think it's pretty clear that this counts as an official position of the SSPX.

Yes, this is what I was thinking of.  People here on FE have told me it represents an official position and that is what it looks like to me.

I actually know Fr. Scott and like and respect him.  I suppose I could ask him about this some time when I see him.

Of course it is the official position and also the reason +ABL and the SSPX endured the persecution from all sides from the moment they were formed. Ironically, the greatest persecution came from those most trusted to preserve the faith.

[orate]

However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful. For the end does not justify the means. Consequently, although it is a good thing to want to assist at Mass and satisfy one’s Sunday obligation, it is never permitted to use a sinful means to do this. To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin. It is opportunism. Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available.  [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]

(http://sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__traditional.htm)

Directly from the web page of the United States district of the SSPX, written by Fr. Peter R. Scott, when he was district superior. I think it's pretty clear that this counts as an official position of the SSPX.

Yes, this is what I was thinking of.  People here on FE have told me it represents an official position and that is what it looks like to me.

I actually know Fr. Scott and like and respect him.  I suppose I could ask him about this some time when I see him.

wsxyz  Thank you for showing me where on the US website that is stated.

Jayne  As you know, I also know Fr. Scott and like and respect him.  And, yes, when it appears on the website--it does "seem" to be official.  However, Father Scott's "opinion" does not represent the "official" SSPX position.  Many of his controversial opinions appeared on the US website when he was District Superior here.  But many times when I was in the confessional, confessing to him, he would contradict his own published opinions.  I trust more what he says when he is receiving the "grace of state" in the confessional, than some of his past ramblings on the US District website.

Keep in mind, that this is coming from someone who considers Father Scott to be her spiritual father, and from one who avoids the Novus Ordo Mass for all the reasons given on the US website now.  But, I use my brain to differentiate between one priest's opinion and Catholic doctrine.

I doubt that Bishop Fellay, the current Superior General of the SSPX, would ever say that attendance at a Novus Ordo Mass is "sinful," though I'm sure he would discourage a person from attending a NO mass if a Tridentine Rite Mass were available to him.

edited for spelling and grammar

[JMartyr]

Quoting Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:" The New Mass is scandalous, but not in the sense of a shocking act. It isn't that. Scandal is whatever leads to sin. Well, the New Mass leads to sin against faith, and that is one of the most serious sins, the most dangerous of sins, because the loss of faith is really estrangement from Revelation, from our Lord Jesus Christ, and from the Church. One can only conclude that an informed person aware of the danger posed by this Mass and who attended it, WOULD CERTAINLY COMMIT AT LEAST A VENIAL SIN . Why, you ask, do you not say a serious sin? Because I think that attendance at this Mass once does not constitute a proximate danger. I think that the danger becomes serious and consequently OCCASION OF SERIOUS SIN by repetition..... THE SIN BECOMES SERIOUS if an informed, aware person goes there regularly anyway, saying to himself that it is all the same to him, he has nothing to fear for his faith, while knowing perfectly well that it is dangerous. He knows it: he has seen for himself that children lost their faith because they regularly attended the New Mass, he has seen for himself that parents have left the Church. Even so, he still goes. That person is really putting his faith in danger, obviously.

Father Peter Scott is of the same mind as the Archbishop.

[Old Salt]

While it may be listed a sin to go to a NO Mass in SSPX websites and even their little blue prayerbook, individual SSPX priests will tell you differently.

I have told by two different SSPX priests at my SSPX chapel that it is not a sin to go to Novus Ordo Mass's.

In fact many years ago I once confessed to an SSPX priest that I went to a NO Mass and he told me, in the confessional, it is not a sin.

Think about how ridiculous that is - - - - If priests from the SSPX actually encourage going to the NOM, there'd be no need for the SSPX at all -  if the NOM were any good at at all they'd participate and celebrate the NOM themselves.

There would have never been any excommunications or persecutions, slanders, defamation etc etc. - just plain absurd OS. I don't know where you come up with this stuff - -post proof.

So you are again calling me a liar.
Well its a point of view, but a wrong one.

These two priests did not "encourage" as you say, going to the NO.
They said "it was not a sin" to go.

[tridentinist]

Does the SSPX hold that attendance at the Novus Ordo Missae would be sinful? Well, I am 99.9% certain that that would be the official position of the SSPX, though most priests I think would say that it would not be a sin for those who "don't know any better" and go in good faith. Whether all SSPX priests personally believe attendance to be sinful, I do not know, and rather doubt.

In South Africa, certainly, the express, official position of the SSPX is that its faithful should boycott all non-SSPX TLM's - even if no other TLM is available on a Day of Obligation. This is the actual, concrete situation where I am. In other words, SSPX faithful should rather skip Sunday Mass than attend a TLM said by a local priest in terms of Summorum Pontificum. (By no means all or even the majority of the parishioners adhere to this). This is as official as it gets - as it comes from our District Superior. However, privately, some priests have advised otherwise. It seems the powers that be are coming to see attendance even at non-SSPX TLM's as sinful (or maybe that doesn't follow - I'm not sure)

[INPEFESS]

Voluntarily participating in any liturgical service that was knowingly designed to undermine the faith would be complicity in the sin of its creators, a betrayal of what Christ died to institute, and a participation in the rending of Jesus' seemless tunic. No legitimate authority can make those actions okay.

[wsxyz]

In South Africa, certainly, the express, official position of the SSPX is that its faithful should boycott all non-SSPX TLM's - even if no other TLM is available on a Day of Obligation. This is the actual, concrete situation where I am. In other words, SSPX faithful should rather skip Sunday Mass than attend a TLM said by a local priest in terms of Summorum Pontificum. (By no means all or even the majority of the parishioners adhere to this). This is as official as it gets - as it comes from our District Superior. However, privately, some priests have advised otherwise. It seems the powers that be are coming to see attendance even at non-SSPX TLM's as sinful (or maybe that doesn't follow - I'm not sure)

That recommendation is also on the website of the U.S. district, but it is widely ignored. There is a constant flow back and forth from people from FSSP chapels to SSPX chapels to independent chapels, etc. Yes, there are regular SSPX attendees who will (ridiculously) refuse to attend an FSSP chapel even if there is no other alternative and similarly there are regular FSSP attendees who will (ridiculously) refuse to attend an SSPX chapel even if there is no other alternative. But there are a lot others who may have a preference but won't hesitate to take what's available or convenient in any particular geographical area. Unsurprisingly, given the way traditional Catholics often are, there are even people who have switched from exclusive attendance at an SSPX chapel to exclusive attendance at an FSSP chapel (and also vice-versa) simply because they didn't like they way the "new priest" celebrated Mass.

My personal opinion, is that whenever an SSPX priest tells the faithful that they must miss mass rather than attend a traditional mass celebrated by a regular traditional society (such as FSSP or ICRSP), then he is telling the faithful to commit a sin, and thus objectively sins himself. The mass is celebrated identically and all doctrine and teaching is completely orthodox and Catholic, thus there is objectively no reason to avoid such a mass.

[orate]

In South Africa, certainly, the express, official position of the SSPX is that its faithful should boycott all non-SSPX TLM's - even if no other TLM is available on a Day of Obligation. This is the actual, concrete situation where I am. In other words, SSPX faithful should rather skip Sunday Mass than attend a TLM said by a local priest in terms of Summorum Pontificum. (By no means all or even the majority of the parishioners adhere to this). This is as official as it gets - as it comes from our District Superior. However, privately, some priests have advised otherwise. It seems the powers that be are coming to see attendance even at non-SSPX TLM's as sinful (or maybe that doesn't follow - I'm not sure)

That recommendation is also on the website of the U.S. district, but it is widely ignored. There is a constant flow back and forth from people from FSSP chapels to SSPX chapels to independent chapels, etc. Yes, there are regular SSPX attendees who will (ridiculously) refuse to attend an FSSP chapel even if there is no other alternative and similarly there are regular FSSP attendees who will (ridiculously) refuse to attend an SSPX chapel even if there is no other alternative. But there are a lot others who may have a preference but won't hesitate to take what's available or convenient in any particular geographical area. Unsurprisingly, given the way traditional Catholics often are, there are even people who have switched from exclusive attendance at an SSPX chapel to exclusive attendance at an FSSP chapel (and also vice-versa) simply because they didn't like they way the "new priest" celebrated Mass.

My personal opinion, is that whenever an SSPX priest tells the faithful that they must miss mass rather than attend a traditional mass celebrated by a regular traditional society (such as FSSP or ICRSP), then he is telling the faithful to commit a sin, and thus objectively sins himself. The mass is celebrated identically and all doctrine and teaching is completely orthodox and Catholic, thus there is objectively no reason to avoid such a mass.

Very astute observation.  Well stated, and I agree.

[Stubborn]

Voluntarily participating in any liturgical service that was knowingly designed to undermine the faith would be complicity in the sin of its creators, a betrayal of what Christ died to institute, and a participation in the rending of Jesus' seemless tunic. No legitimate authority can make those actions okay.

Excellent INP. Thanks!

[Stubborn]

While it may be listed a sin to go to a NO Mass in SSPX websites and even their little blue prayerbook, individual SSPX priests will tell you differently.

I have told by two different SSPX priests at my SSPX chapel that it is not a sin to go to Novus Ordo Mass's.

In fact many years ago I once confessed to an SSPX priest that I went to a NO Mass and he told me, in the confessional, it is not a sin.

Think about how ridiculous that is - - - - If priests from the SSPX actually encourage going to the NOM, there'd be no need for the SSPX at all -  if the NOM were any good at at all they'd participate and celebrate the NOM themselves.

There would have never been any excommunications or persecutions, slanders, defamation etc etc. - just plain absurd OS. I don't know where you come up with this stuff - -post proof.

So you are again calling me a liar.
Well its a point of view, but a wrong one.

These two priests did not "encourage" as you say, going to the NO.
They said "it was not a sin" to go.

I find it very difficult to believe that an SSPX priest would say such a thing specifically for one who knows better.