Rorate Caeli

Pagliarani: 'If we do not arrive at some canonical regularization...'

The extensive interview granted by Father Davide Pagliarani, Superior for the Italian District of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), speaking from Albano Laziale, less than 2 miles from the Papal summer palace at Castel Gandolfo, on the current situation of the discussions between the Holy See and his Congregation was briefly mentioned by us before. The website of the SSPX American District is making its own translation available (visit their website for the first part), and we can offer our readers the most relevant excerpts of the entire interview. 

This interview is, for several reasons, a relevant historical document and a fair assessment of the current status and of what can be expected in the near future.
Part I

I think that to consider the talks unsuccessful is an error based on prejudice. This conclusion is drawn perhaps by those who expected from the talks some result foreign to the purposes of the talks themselves.

The aim of the talks never was to arrive at a concrete agreement, but rather to compile a clear and complete dossier that would document the respective doctrinal positions of the two sides and to submit it to the Pope and the Superior General of the Society. Since the two commissions worked patiently, touching on essentially all the topics on the agenda, I do not see why anyone would have to regard the talks as unsuccessful.

------------------------

Above all, however, it seems to me that this shows the existence of groups and positions that expect some benefit from a canonical regularization of the Society, without however being willing to make Society’s battle their own or to assume the burdens and the consequences of it.

There are in fact in the diversified Traditionalist archipelago a number of “commentators” who, while expressing their essential disagreement with the Society’s line of thinking, watch with the greatest interest current developments in our cause, hoping for some positive repercussions on the institutes with which they identify or on the local situations in which they are involved. I am impressed by the palpitations experienced by these commentators every time the slightest rumor about the future of the Society crops up. 

----------------------

Consequently—and unfortunately—these groups are interested in the outcome of the Society’s story not so much for the sake of the doctrinal principles that support it and for the bearing it could have on the Church herself, but rather from a utilitarian perspective: the Society is seen as a breakthrough battalion of priests who now have nothing to lose but, if they obtain something significant for their congregation, will create a canonical precedent to which others will be able to appeal, too.

--------------------

If we do not arrive at some canonical regularization, that simply means that the hierarchy is not yet sufficiently convinced of the urgent need for that contribution. In that case we will have to wait a few more years, hoping for an increase in that awareness, which could occur along with and parallel to the acceleration in the process of the Church’s self-destruction.

-------------------

Part II


To the members of the Society it is clear that the identity of their own congregation is structured around a definite, precise axis that is called Tradition; upon this principle, which is universally shared within the Society, the unity of the Society itself is built, and I think that objectively it is impossible to find a stronger principle of identity and cohesion: precisely this basic cohesion on the essentials is what allows the individuals to have variously nuanced views on any matters of opinion.

--------------------

If the two rites are considered to be two equivalent forms of the same Roman Rite, there is no reason why the Tridentine Rite should be so dangerous as to require some sort of examination before allowing it.

Finally, if one honestly accepts this premise [of equivalence], there is no reason why priests and bishops who publicly reject the Tridentine Rite should not be asked to refrain from celebrating the New Mass until they let go of their stubborn resolution.

--------------------

I think that article 19 of the Instruction, although on the one hand it is the expression of a typical diplomatic attitude, on the other hand can unfortunately become part of a sort of ill-concealed moral blackmail. It reveals an awareness on the part of the bishops that the Tridentine Mass inevitably conveys an ecclesiology that is incompatible with that of the Council and the Novus Ordo. Consequently the Tridentine Mass can be allowed only while exercising direct control over the consciences of the faithful. To me that seems rather alarming.

--------------------

Part III

Consequently the formal, peremptory request to proceed to ordinations according to the new rite is the external sign that is deemed sufficient to prove that the ordinands (and the bishop himself) fully accept article 19 of the Instruction; by adopting the new rite for the event that is undoubtedly the most important and significant one in their lives and in the life of the diocese.

--------------------

Dulcis in fundo [Last but not least], since everyone knows that the Society will never accept either article 31 nor article 19, all the malcontents at the one end of the spectrum are now criticizing it for its “disobedience”, thus seeking to show off their own “legality”, while at the other end they watch it, hoping that its intransigence will indirectly obtain something positive for them too.

And so we see again the mechanism of “sequebatur a longe ut videret finem” [“following at a distance so as to see the outcome”] and of utilitarian hope placed in the Society that we referred to earlier.

--------------------

Archbishop Lefebvre embodied something imperishable: the Tradition of the Church, and if there was a bishop in whom Tradition never ceased to be “living” (if I may use the expression), it was certainly the “rebel” bishop. For example, the one prelate who never stopped celebrating publicly in the traditional rite, which was then mistakenly considered abrogated and banned, was the founder of the Society of St. Pius X: he did not merely hand on to new generations a printed, dusty missal, but preserved and transmitted a real, living treasure which is present every day on the altar, with which he was totally and personally involved.

--------------------

But anyone who speaks about him, for good or for ill, cannot do so without speaking about a Tradition which, far from being “Lefebvrite”, is simply and forever Catholic.

28 comments:

Cruise the Groove. said...

"The aim of the talks never was to arrive at a concrete agreement,"

Whose aim was not to arrive at a concrete agreement?

If it was the SSPX aim, then it is unfortunate because all members of the Church should be canonically regularised, for sacraments etc.

If the aim of the Vatican was not a concrete agreement, what was it then?

Just regularise them please Holy Father.
The SSPX would not have to compromise a jot of the Faith and they would be canonically regularised, with all the salutory benefits that come from that.

Cruise the Groove. said...

At the end of Part I of the interview is this paragraph, pardon me if it is already here:

"Assuming that [if] the Vatican offered to the Society the opportunity to be structured as an Ordinariate directly subject to the Holy See, how might that proposal be received?

It would be taken calmly into consideration on the basis of the principles and priorities and above all the supernatural prudence from which the superiors of the Society have always drawn their inspiration."

LeonG said...

Self-destruction being the operative term recognised & coined by Pope Paul VI(RIP)

When I heard new catholics defending Luther and Calvin against a then supposed corrupt Catholic Church and its indulgences my replies attempting to add a modicum of historical accuracy to proceedings led to me being accused of hatred of the dead. Defending the popes of the day and St James' Epistle "of straw" made matters worse for me, not better.

Has it really become as appalling as this amongst post-conciliar catholics?

Long-Skirts said...

"If the two rites are considered to be two equivalent forms of the same Roman Rite ... if one honestly accepts this premise [of equivalence], there is no reason why priests and bishops who publicly reject the Tridentine Rite should not be asked to refrain from celebrating the New Mass until they let go of their stubborn resolution."


NEW
APPROVED
and
MIDDLE

In the middle of the Church
There’s a very safe spot
Where it’s not very cold
And it’s not very hot.

You can say a little prayer
In a Latin cant one day
On another take the Host
Serve yourself walk away.

It’s the middle of the Church
And a very safe spot
Where it’s not very cold
And it’s not very hot.

There are no schools for minds
Or for little Catholic souls
But at least there are no fights
How to clean the toilet bowls.

For the classrooms they are empty
And the lavatories too
No daily Mass, religion class
For little Don and Sue.

But it’s really very middle
In a very safe spot
Where it’s not very cold
And it’s not very hot.

The new Mass has its many
Approved have many too
But approved must keep their silence
While sitting in their pew.

Approved brings in good money
The new says, “that is great!”
And priests who go between them both
Can really celebrate…

For they’re really in the middle
In a very safe spot
Where it’s not very cold
And it’s not very hot.

Approved can say the old -
Approved can say the new -
For when you’re in the middle
You accommodate the two.

So new, approved and middle
Give all a chance to view
And each will save a spot
For you & you & you…

In the middle of the Church
In a luke warm spot
Where you’ll never fight the cold
And you’ll never fight the hot!


"But anyone who speaks about him, for good or for ill, cannot do so without speaking about a Tradition which, far from being “Lefebvrite”, is simply and forever Catholic."

Anonymous said...

Leon

Yes, it has. When the One True Church is put on the same level (despite protests that this is not in fact being done) with protestant and non-christian sects, you know there are severe problems, and it doesn't appear to me that anyone is ready to correct the problem yet.

Ditch "subsist" and reinsert "is".

Delphina

Furumbulo said...

"I think that article 19 of the Instruction, although on the one hand it is the expression of a typical diplomatic attitude, on the other hand can unfortunately become part of a sort of ill-concealed moral blackmail. It reveals an awareness on the part of the bishops that the Tridentine Mass inevitably conveys an ecclesiology that is incompatible with that of the Council and the Novus Ordo. Consequently the Tridentine Mass can be allowed only while exercising direct control over the consciences of the faithful. To me that seems rather alarming."

Sad. I really hope Father Pagliarani to read monsignor Rifan's comments regarding the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo. Specially this part:

"Because if, in theory or practice, we did consider the New Mass, in itself, as invalid, sacrilegious, heterodox, or non-Catholic, sinful and, therefore, illegitimate, we would have to accept the logical theological consequences of this position and apply it to the Pope and to all the Episcopate in the world, that is, to all the Teaching Church: that is, maintain that the Church can officially promulgate, has promulgated, has kept for decades, and does offer to God every day illegitimate and sinful worship - a position condemned by the Magisterium - and that, therefore, the gates of Hell have prevailed against her, which would be a heresy."

This is the only meaning of UE19, i.e., that if you consider the NO to be illicit or illegitimate you are close heresy, so before attending tridentine Mass it would be better for your soul to abandon these dangerous theories.

Another sad excerpt: "If we do not arrive at some canonical regularization, that simply means that the hierarchy is not yet sufficiently convinced of the urgent need for that contribution."

If the society does not arrive to some canonical regularization, that actually means that they will keep exercising a de facto government over an important portion of the Church, as they lack potestas regendi. This is a very grave situation and they keep ignoring it, or lying to themselves about it (thinking that they do not actually perform actions which requiere power of jurisdiction to be valid and/or licit), or fabricating novel canonical theories which I'm sure are very attractive to modernist theologians and chinese patriotic church officials.

Anonymous said...

Devastating:

"...hoping for an increase in that awareness, which could occur along with and parallel to the acceleration in the process of the Church’s self-destruction."

Also the part about the supposed equality of the Masses.

By the way, great job Long-Skirts!

Anonymous said...

What needs to happen IMO is not some structure regularizing the Society but an admission by Rome that such a structure was never necessary in the first place. An admission needs to be made that traditional Roman Catholics who practice their Faith according to what Holy Mother Church has always held, taught and professed to be true from apostolic times are, and have always been, truly Catholic and within the bosom of Holy Mother Church. In other words Tradition itself was never and can never be excommunicated.

At the same time, it is unrealistic to expect that traditionalists and modernists can co-exist in a fractured church with guitar masses and other aberrations on the one hand and traditional Latin Masses on the other. It is unrealistic to expect that one Catholic group will uphold the church's teaching on marriage and the sacraments while others permit divorces, cohabitation and other non sequiturs. It is unrealistic to expect that one group will preach and teach traditional moral ethics while others do not. In essence the Church must come to grips with itself and admit there is but one solution to the crisis - a full return to Tradition, eliminating all the abuses and aberrations that have crept into the Sanctuary.

Will it happen? We have every reason to doubt that it will happen without Divine intervention.

PEH

Damask Rose said...

"If we do not arrive at some canonical regularization, that simply means that the hierarchy is not yet sufficiently convinced of the urgent need for that contribution."

The arrogance is unbelievable in
this statement. So, they wouldn't consider coming in on their own initiative like the FSSP and reach out to your average Catholic in the parishes. 2009 figures say the SSPX had 500 priests and 200 seminarians and yet all these trad priests are dithering about coming in and helping us, surely this is part of the diabolical disorientation.

"In that case we will have to wait a few more years, hoping for an increase in that awareness, which could occur along with and parallel to the acceleration in the process of the Church’s self-destruction."

Yep, go on SSPX, wait some more... This is so true to the charism left by Abp Lefebvre to his Society. *sigh*

"...acceleration in the process of the Church’s self-destruction."

Vatican II is beginning to be questioned, even Papa Ratzinger's role in it. No doubt change will be a painful and (hopefully) not too slow a process. Incremently, more and more priests are saying the Latin Mass in my diocese. You have these priests on a "circuit" and regular parishioners turning up. A kind of parallel parish. At ground level things are changing for the positive now. Perhaps liberalism in the Church will either go AWOL or collapse.

"Finally, if one honestly accepts this premise [of equivalence], there is no reason why priests and bishops who publicly reject the Tridentine Rite should not be asked to refrain from celebrating the New Mass until they let go of their stubborn resolution."

This statement could go both ways: "... priests and bishops who publicly reject the New Mass should not be asked to refrain from celebrating the Tridentine Rite until they let go of their stubborn resolution."

Personally I think the Latin Mass is the one True Mass.

"...which was then mistakenly considered abrogated and banned."

Definitely right here. It wasn't banned. The Mass of Ages, bought by the blood of the English Martyrs, legally with the 1971 Indult went to Our Lady's Dowry, one time home of the Holy House at Walsingham. After Paul VI replaced the Tridentine Rite, he then releases it... God works in mysterious ways. Deo Gratias. Then there was the 1984 Indult and Ecclesia Dei in 1988.

Anonymous said...

I was hoping that the SSPX would teach some of these who are in talks with her , the true tradition of the church. Let's face it nothing will be solved if the SSPX regularizes and still the rest of the Novus Ordo goes on acting like JESUS started his church in the mid 1960s.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps regularization should be the next step while "Phase 2" of talks continue if the Society and Pope feel they are on the right track. As someone on the outside that looks in once in a while and pray for the SSPX full communion to happen soon for a myriad of reasons, it may be time to take another step in regularizing the SSPX removing the chance for a stall. Even if small and incremental it most go forward toward union, not stall and the hardening of positions starting all over again until a need for more Society Bishops eventually comes up after years pass in stalemate. I pray for Our Church, The Holy Father and SSPX. Many eyes are on you praying for peace and union, even if not outspoken on the issues.

Anonymous said...

I have a concern with some of the priests and lay people from the FSSPX, and it's the belief that only they are the true Catholics or many consider themselves to be the remnant.
To them I say: hmmmm....I don't think so.

Anonymous said...

"Let's face it nothing will be solved if the SSPX regularizes and still the rest of the Novus Ordo goes on acting like JESUS started his church in the mid 1960s."
-----------------------------

Why? That is the situation that Traditional Catholics deal with daily throughout the Church.

Within a given diocese, a parish is set aside for the TLM.

The remaining parishes offer the Novus Ordo — you know, Communion in the hand, altar girls, piano music, T-shirt-clad folks, etc.

If "regularized," the SSPX would operate their "full communion" chapel while down the street, the typical Novus Ordo parish would exist.

Tom

Anonymous said...

I believe a reconciliation of the SSPX is highly, highly unlikely, humanly speaking.

As one who attends SSPX Masses regularly out of necessity (and believes this is not a sin and fulfils the Sunday obligation), I am regularly exposed to the mentality of "we are the sole faithful remnant". And being told in no uncertain terms to avoid "approved" Traditional Masses at all costs - even if it means having no Mass at all on a Sunday or Day of Obligation.

Then there is the "Bishop Williamson element" who would likely refuse reconciliation on any terms whatsoever, or at any rate an terms short of complete and total capitulation of Rome to the SSPX in every respect - prohibition of the No vus Ordo, condemnation of Vatican II as a Robber Council, etc.

Add to that the fact that the younge generation raised in the SSPX have been raised to view a situation of permanent separation from Rome as normal and antagonism to the Pope as expected - you will likely find that a reconciliation is something to be seen more in eschatalogical terms, however desirable it may be.

bernadette said...

"But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth...."

Thanks for the poem, Long Skirts...
NEW
APPROVED
and
MIDDLE

Anonymous said...

"If we do not arrive at some canonical regularization, that simply means that the hierarchy is not yet sufficiently convinced of the urgent need for that contribution. In that case we will have to wait a few more years, hoping for an increase in that awareness, which could occur along with and parallel to the acceleration in the process of the Church’s self-destruction."

On this Feast of the Dedication of the Church of Our Lady of the Snow - St. Mary Major - which Providentially harmonizes with the First Friday of August, let us look upon these words through Our Mother's timeless perspective.
In the course of another "few more years" how many are the lengthened moments of agony she must endure with Her Crucified Son for the sins that not only continue but escalate while Her most exalted priestly sons of this time WAIT for an "increase" of other's illumination.

As you ascend the Altar to be unioned with Our Crucified King in His timeless oblation, may you be dociley aware of HIS PAIN in those last hours of AGONY. This alone may hasten your steps of humility to beg those who Crucify Him now, whether in ignorance or malice, to look upon Whom they continue to torment Who will very soon be their Divine Judge.

Then ponder, dear priests, what would you do standing at the Foot of the Cross with Our Sorrowful Mother IF you could implore the Omnipotent Eternal Father to cease the sufferings upon His Son from mankind? Go now, faithful priests to the Altar and do this. Take Him adoringly with gratitude OFF the Cross after 3 hours and offer yourselves now in His place for the duration of this Crucifixion of His Mystical Body - His Church.

Finally, as you behold increasing devastation strike this world, may your souls be freed from the guilt of provoking Our Father’s justice through any sins of omission which would hesitate the placement of your consecrated hands more fully to the privileged task of reproaching & guiding His priestly, religious & laity children who are as “plague stricken & oftentimes even delirious victims” of a diabolical pestilence. Through the intercession of the Sorrowful & Immaculate Heart of Our Mother, may true priests be ennobled by the Holy Spirit to the task at hand in order that they and all of us may have the coming Providential trials of reparation mitigated and be Eternally spared at Judgment.

Anonymous said...

A canonical structure should be set up for the FSSP and others already fully in union with the Church. Offer the SSPX a place within that structure and excommunicate those that refuse.

Anonymous said...

It amazes me that not a few contributers know so much more how to "fight the good fight" than those who by their faith, wisdom, understanding, patience, fortitude and tenacity made actual progress in the fight to resore Tradition than the prime movers, the SSPX. I mean they have over 40 years of perseverance going for them. If by their fruits you don't trust their ability to fight for the truth by now, I doubt you ever will.

A.M. LaPietra

Cruise the Groove. said...

Anonymous
"A canonical structure should be set up for the FSSP and others already fully in union with the Church. Offer the SSPX a place within that structure and excommunicate those that refuse."

What about those lay faithful that are attached to the TLM and have no physical recourse but the SSPX Masses, to assist at an TLM?

If the SSPX priests and bishops do not voluntarily join a canonical structure, are these poor faithful Catholics left out in the cold?

Anonymous said...

Cruise the Groove,

How many cities have SSPX but no regularized TLM? Certainly no more than a couple hundred, even assuming the Society priests refused en masse. The problem is not unmanageable. When establishing a canonical structure, those faithful with no other access should indeed be assisted by the Holy See.

Jack said...

\\What about those lay faithful that are attached to the TLM and have no physical recourse but the SSPX Masses, to assist at an TLM?\\

What about those lay Eastern Catholic faithful who are attached to the Byzantine Rite and have no physical recourse but to attend an Orthodox Church to assist at the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom?

If you approve of the first, you must by logic approve of the second.

The issue boils down to this: are you attached to a rite, or to the Rock of St. Peter and the hierarchy in regular, undisputed, and visible communion with him?

Most holy Theotokos, save us.

Anonymous said...

When will this end??
I hope September will bring some clarity, because this just can't go on, for the sake of all Catholics I pray Rome and SSPX come to some agreement.

I personally would welcome the SSPX.

We need their orthodox witness to the Faith, but WITHIN the bossom of the Church.
Yes, the Church with all its brokeness and the tragic spiritual crisis we are confronting. That very Church needs them inside.

No, FSSPX Christ didn't come for the few of the SSPX crowd around the world in your chapels, Christ came to give us ALL sinners a chance in accepting him.

The Society should start thinking up in those terms. I agree not all are going to be saved, but all should be given the opportunity to be save.

Holy scripture talks of a group called the remnant at the end times, BUT, who are some of the hardliners from the SSPX to decide it is them???

I ask not too sound confrontational but because the question needs to be ask.

For my part, if the situation doesn't clear up,and I pray it does, I'm grateful to receive the spiritual help of the more humble FSSP.

Anonymous said...

In much of the world the SSPX is the only option for those wanting the Traditional Mass. So excommunicating those who refuse to join some structure would indeed leave many out in the cold, with nowhere to turn...save for the Novus Ordo.
However, my firm belief, from my own experiences, is that excommunications would be ignored by many SSPX faithful. They will follow the SSPX wherever she goes, even out of the Church, all the while, insisting they are the true faithful remnant. In our own chapel, many would rather go to Sunday Rosary devotions than attend a TLM offered by a local priest - and our encouraged unambiguously by their priest, who even tells people not to go to confession to non-SSPX priests - rather make an Act of Perfect Contrition and await the next visit of the SSPX.
So...don't let's be overly sanguine about prospects for a reconciliation, at any rate one involving all or most of the SSPX.
They're not just about orthodox Catholicism and traditional liturgy, gallant opponents of the modernist philistines occupying the chanceries and rectories of the establishment; many firmly believe they are all that's left of the Church, will have absolutely nothing to do with anyone else, and their conduct follows suit.

Anonymous said...

To anyone so critical of the SSPX because of some priests who are over zealous within it. I would say
that even Christ had his Judas. He was 1/12 of the Early Church hierarchy. That would equal about 50 priests in todays SSPX numbers.

I seem to remember more than a few years ago when a protocol surfaced in the FSSP because about 16 priests and seminarians wanted to be able to offer at least one Novus Ordo Mass, (The Maundy Thursday Mass I think) each year. The Diocesan Bishop insisted it was their right. Ther Superior stood his ground in refusing it. He was replaced by one of those priests who undermined him. Did any of you same people ask the question: Why does one join a Traditional Order if one wants to ever say the Novus Ordo?

This occurrance would have been confounding were it not predicted long before it happened by Bishop LeFebvre. I don't judge the whole lot of the FSSP by the actions of those sixteen individuals even if it were true that they were all guilty of deceit. The most over zealous SSPX priests I ever knew all left it to become openly Sedevacantist.

A.M. LaPietra

Anonymous said...

But anyone who speaks about him [Archbishop Lefebvre], for good or for ill, cannot do so without speaking about a Tradition which, far from being “Lefebvrite”, is simply and forever Catholic.

And this is really a problem for his critics. He wasn't like the founders of the Utrecht heresy at all, who denied the doctrine of papal infallibility after its definition by Vatican I.

He did not found a heretical movement. He kept himself and others from one.

--Zak

Anonymous said...

From my point of view, there is something 'not right' but still not all is bad with SSPX. One can only detect this after one has been 'inside' for a number of years. Because of the Society, I learn to recite my Rosary everyday, practice modesty, learn some Latin and the best part is, get to attend the True Mass. But this True Mass is only available a few days in a month i.e. when the priest makes the mission trip to my place. After a number of years, I realize that, the Society, even though it keeps affirming that the current pope, Benedict XVI, is recognized as the reigning pope...the group actually behaves in an 'indirect way of schism' slowly telling its faithful to not go to NO priests. But to go to NO priests only in case of necessity ...like visit them only when you 'need' them but most of the time 'stay away' from them. This makes their members look very pitiful (and foolishly arrogant)But this may not be the case when there are permanent SSPX chapels.

But then again there is also, very obvious, not right with Vatican-II. Ecumenism II is clearly the transgression of the FIRST COMMANDMENT: I am the Lord Thy God, thou shalt not have strange gods before ME. I firmly believe that the Traditional Latin Mass is the true mass. But because of the crisis, this mass is made to look like the 'extraordinary' form...not the ordinary form. Just an extra...not something necessary. So, these are the bad sides of SSPX and Vat-II...But when it comes to the regularization of the SSPX status, the pope has clearly stated that the SSPX bishops and priests are currently in the state of 'suspensio divinis' until agreement is made between Rome and SSPX. The lifting of the ex-com of the four bishops have been done (through the Rosary Crusade) but look at the result...the SSPX status now is worst than before, their hands are firmly bound (Do they think they can deceive the Blessed Virgin Mary? Something is really wrong here...). How can they welcomed the lifting of the ex-com but deny the 'suspensio divinis'?...again an act of schism...In my opinion, sticking with the Church through good and bad times is the ONLY solution. Please SSPX, if you really want to save souls, then forgo, the societies arrogance.. your choice is either 'in' or 'out'...IN communion with Rome OR Sedesvacantist. NO MIDDLE position.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Anonymous at 9:15 - I see things in much the same way as you.

In my experience there is a spectrum of opinion within the SSPX, and even there "official" positions can be nuanced in different directions. I have met some wonderful, holy priests in the SSPX who would be a great asset to the Church, but also some nutters and extremists.

The SSPX here not only tells people to avoid the Novus Ordo, but all priests who offer the Novus Ordo - to the point of rather missing Sunday Mass than attend the Traditional Mass of such a priest. Even rather say an act of contrition and await the next SSPX visit than confess and receive absolution from such a priest.

There is much good in the SSPX and a great deal to support and be grateful for, but the aforegoing is illustrative of a deeply schismatic mindset in my view.

Roger Buck said...

Re:

"The SSPX here not only tells people to avoid the Novus Ordo, but all priests who offer the Novus Ordo - to the point of rather missing Sunday Mass than attend the Traditional Mass of such a priest. Even rather say an act of contrition and await the next SSPX visit than confess and receive absolution from such a priest."

If this is really true, I am dumfounded.

Do not go to a Traditional Mass if the priest also celebrates the Novus Ordo?!

Even to say do not go to the Novus Ordo would seem outrageous.

It amounts to saying: "Do not turn to Our Lord."

Unless one were certain that Our Lord is not present in the Novus Ordo.

I am very moved by many elements of the SSPX, but this troubles me.