The Attraction Of The New Mass

The Attraction Of The New Mass


I’ve been stunned recently to learn of people whom I know who are not troubled by the thought of attending the novus ordo.  If there’s no TLM available, they argue, why not attend the new Mass? All I know is that I don’t feel that I am attending Mass on the odd occasion when I’m forced to be present at a novus ordo.   The Mass which nourished the saints and martyrs for centuries is just nothing like the modern Mass, but I’m running out of ways to explain that to those who can’t see the problem. What, precisely IS the attraction of this new Protestantised Mass? Help!

Comments (153)

  • waterside4

    Dear Editor,

    As stated before I am fast approaching my 74th birthday. Through thick and thin, I have tried my best to adhere to the Catholic faith which I imbibed with my mothers milk.
    I live over 100 miles (TG!) from Glasgow, and 90 miles from Edinburgh.
    The only Masses in Tayside are in the new form.

    It is all well and good for your estimable self to lecture us poor souls on the deficiencies of the ‘new’ Mass, but please tell me what is the alternative.

    We have a million pound church which will be 16 years old next month, which seats 500.
    We have the most wonderful Parish Priest in charge of 3 clustered Parishes with 3 other Priests (2 from India)
    We have religious instruction, well attended, every Wednesday night.
    We have Holy Hour with Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament on the last Friday of each month.
    We have morning prayers every weekday morning before Mass.
    Our Parish Priest gives the most exhilarating homilies, off the cuff, marching down the isle lasting 10 to 20 minutes.
    He is the most wonderful Choir Master and musician.

    Over the years I have been honoured to be a Reader, Cantor, Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist, and anything that was needed in our church.

    Can someone tell me where I have gone wrong.

    And yet I find that I cannot in all conscience attend Mass since Pope Francis came out with his ridiculous pagan Encyclical, Our PP subscribes to this pagan religion of Man Made Global Warming and he promotes something called the Eco Congregation, not to mention SCIAF and the other Marxist religions.

    Over to you Dear Editor and other sages on here for guidance.

    Happy New Year to you and yours and all our bloggers.

    December 29, 2015 at 6:15 pm
    • editor


      Before I respond in any detail, would you answer this question, please.

      If some good soul from the Church of Scotland or any other “denomination” of Christianity, approached you with an invitation to become a Protestant, what would you say?

      December 29, 2015 at 6:43 pm
      • editor


        I see you’ve not gotten around to answering my question so let me take the liberty of answering it for you: I imagine that you would effectively say “sling yer hook, pal – no way!” to anyone who tried to convert you to Protestantism.

        Yet, that is precisely the effect of the novus ordo. Gradually, little by little, it makes Protestants of the faithful-turned-faithless. The stats speak for themselves, as does any conversation with a novus ordo attending Catholic, priest or lay person these days. Incredibly, they’ve got more in common with members of the C of S and C of E and Wee Frees, than with so-called “traditional” Catholics – i.e. Catholics who have clung to the traditional Faith and rejected the novelties in parishes around the world, your own, obviously, judging by your list, included.

        The way Catholics, even such as your good self, think nothing of handling the Blessed Sacrament and even distributing it as if a priest, is proof positive of the success of the Bugnini Mass in Protestantising the hitherto Catholic faithful. It’s very sad.

        And how Catholics who have been attending the TLM, even SSPX chapels for a period of years can still advocate attending a NO if no TLM available, leaves me cold. Stunned and cold. My gaster, as I’ve said elsewhere on this thread, is well and truly flabbered.

        December 29, 2015 at 11:59 pm
    • Petrus


      Where does one start? I suppose a starting point is that a new liturgy cannot be “created”. The rites of the Church must be “received”, ie. Handed down, and approved. The rites can be adapted but they cannot be re – created. The New Mass may be approved by the Church, but it hasn’t been received.

      We also know that it is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. Remember the words of Archbishop Bugnini, “We must remove from the Mass everything that is a stumbling block to our separated brethren, that is, the Protestants.” Six Protestant ministers were also part of the group that wrote the New Mass.

      We can then look at the fruits of the New Mass . Sacrilege, lapsation, loss of Faith, loss of vocations, closed parishes, mass confusion, heresy, indifference etc . Remember, “by their fruits ye shall know them”. This all leads a right thinking Catholic to one conclusion – attendance at the New Mass cannot be obligatory.

      In your situation, I would look at sanctifying Sunday in other ways. These are not ordinary times. Pray your rosary and read the readings in the Missal. Perhaps pray some Novenas for the Traditional Mass to return to your neck of the woods.

      December 29, 2015 at 7:21 pm
    • Margaret Mary


      “Our Parish Priest gives the most exhilarating homilies, off the cuff, marching down the isle lasting 10 to 20 minutes.”

      I once had a PP who used to march up and down the aisle giving his homily and it used to be very disconcerting. I had the feeling he was going to ask me a question any minute, and I would be mortified. Then I mentioned it to another priest and he said that wasn’t allowed, it was forbidden for priests to walk about giving the homily, they should stay at the lectern where the readings were read and preach the homily there.

      I also don’t like “off the cuff” as that suggests a lack of preparation. Surely preaching is too important to do off the cuff?

      December 29, 2015 at 7:38 pm
      • editor


        I’ve also seen that particular liturgical abuse more than once. It’s really off-putting to see a priest strutting his stuff like that in church. Pathetic, in fact.

        As for your fear of being asked a question, on one occasion I very nearly asked the priest a question about the heresy he’d just spouted and only just stopped myself. Instead, I quoted him in something I was writing for publication at the time, and sent him a copy.

        What was that, often quoted on a priest’s ordination card? Oh yes; I remember now… “He must increase, I must decrease”.

        Yeah, right.

        December 29, 2015 at 8:04 pm
    • Michaela


      I am surprised at your comments about the new Mass, especially about being honoured to be an Extraordinary Minister. I thought you might like to see an interview with Bishop Schneider talking about Communion in the hand, something which was always prohibited in the Church, although listen closely to the exception he gives, it’s truly mind-blowing, compared to what is going on today.


      December 29, 2015 at 7:53 pm
    • RCA Victor

      Dear Waterside4,

      I’m truly sorry you are not able to find a TLM, but I refer you to Petrus’ and CC1’s posts (Dry Mass) in answer to your request for guidance – though I suspect this will not satisfy your obvious thirst for a real Mass. Speaking of which, have you simply gotten down on your knees and told Our Lord and Lady of your thirst?

      That said, others have already pointed out some of the ways in which imbibing the NO has poisoned your faith, but since I’m apparently addicted to making lists (see my other post below), here’s another one:

      1. Million pound church: irrelevant.
      2. Clustered parishes: unheard of before the revolution, and a sign of decay.
      3. Off the cuff ambulatory “homilies”: disgraceful. The priest is not a peacock.
      4. Priest as choir master and musician: irrelevant. What about priest as priest?
      5. Your lay roles during Mass: I’ll restrain myself…
      6. However, the most problematic of all your statements is that you cannot attend Mass since the god of surprises sat in the Chair of Peter and bowed his head to the pagan world. The practice of our faith, as I hope you know, does not depend on our revulsion at who is the Pope, who is the Bishop, who is the Priest, or even who else is sitting in the congregation. This is the Passion of the Church; would you also have abandoned Our Lord during His Passion?

      If you are thirsty, kind sir, storm Heaven with it, and use the spiritual weapons at your disposal.

      December 29, 2015 at 9:07 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    I know the reason why many people prefer the New Mass- idleness. I have mentioned to several people at my local Novus Ordo Parish Church the fact that I attend the TLM whenever possible. They say ‘oh well, I prefer Mass in English as I can understand it’. My response- ‘er…well, get a Missal. You have Latin on one side, English on the other’. Not difficult. One Irish woman said, ‘in Ireland, we wanted rid of the Latin Mass, I don’t understand why young people want it back’. We want it back my dear because in an evil, godless and profane world we want something beautiful, sacred, glorious and worship which transcends both time, history and space. Another common argument is that ‘I want to participate’. It is not only idleness, it is pride. ‘I want’- the New Mass is totally human centred. When you go to watch cricket at Lord’s, do you run on the pitch and start batting? No, you participate by your material presence. At cricket (I’m a Sassenach) we cheer and at Mass we pray with the Priest. As St. Pius X of sacred memory said, ‘You do not What about what God wants? You do not go to Mass to pray, but rather to pray the Mass. As St. Pius X of sacred memory said,’the Holy Mass is a prayer itself, even the highest prayer that exists. It is the Sacrifice dedicated by our Redeemer at the Cross, and repeated every day on the Altar. If you wish to hear the Mass as it should be heard, you must follow with eye, heart, and mouth all that happens at the Altar’. In the Baltimore Catechism the primary ends of the Mass (along with those of the Cross) are:

    To honour and glorify God (Adoration)
    To thank Him for all the graces bestowed on the whole world (Thanksgiving)
    To satisfy God’s justice for the sins of men (Atonement)
    To obtain all graces and blessings (Petition)

    The Mass should be ordered towards God. The Mass is the Sacrifice of Calvary made present, in which our dear Saviour offers Himself, through the ministry of the Priest, once again in an unbloody manner under the appearances of bread and wine. As St. Padre Pio said, “It would be easier for the world to survive without the sun than to do without Holy Mass.” That is why the entire world has collapsed as God’s grace has been severely limited, if not cut off, through the New Mass.

    The Novus Ordo is an abomination. Ratzinger said the NO was a ‘banal on the spot fabrication’? Also, the NO was roundly condemned by many theologians, most notably Cardinals Bacci and Ottavianni, who wrote their famous letter to Paul VI in 1969, stating:

    ‘The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent’.

    ‘The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicions already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith’.

    Indeed, the New Missal condemned in 1967 by a Synod of Bishops in Rome, who had the misfortune to witness Bugnini celebrate his ‘Missa Normativa’.

    Likewise, what were the reasons for its introduction? Was it to make the Mass more accessible to people, or to make it easier for people to participate? No! As Archbishop Bugnini said, ‘we must remove from our Catholic prayers and liturgy all that serves as a stumbling-block to our separated brethren, that is to say Protestants’. I believe Bugnini, a suspected Freemason, had an ulterior motive. He termed his New Mass a ‘major conquest of the Catholic Church’, a phrase alarmingly similar to Luther’s, ‘destroy the Mass and you will have destroyed the Catholic Church’. We are seeing Luther’s prophecy coming into fruition in our own days, with the loss of faith, collapse in vocations and decimation of Mass attendance.

    Similarly, the Novus Ordo was also criticised by Protestants. Peter L. Berger, a Lutheran sociologist, stated: “If a thoroughly malicious sociologist bent on injuring the Catholic community as much as possible had been an adviser to the Church, he could hardly have done a better job.”

    Finally, Dietrich von Hildebrand, the 20th century Doctor of the Church, as termed by Pius XII, stated, more cuttingly, ‘Truly, if one of the devils in C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy he could not have done it better’.

    In short, these Masses are not ‘two forms of the same rite’, in fact they are polar opposites. One Mass, codified by St. Pius V, and with the hearty blessing of all subsequent Popes (up until Paul VI), Priests, Saints and Laity, and which is based upon ancient rites, is the only Mass ever sanctioned by the Church for worship, as stated in Quo Primum in 1570.

    It is well known that Quo Primum was meant to be a perpetually binding encyclical. Here’s one extract:

    “Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us”.

    The only other Masses permitted were those that were 200 years old or older, such as the Norbertine, Benedictine, Carmelite, Ambrosian, Mozarabic rites or the Rite of Braga.

    Two ‘dubia’ were submitted by a South American Bishop on behalf of a layman there in 2012:

    (1) is the new Mass “legitimate” in the sense that it is permitted by the Church or

    (2) is it “legitimate” because it is neither doctrinally unorthodox or otherwise displeasing to God.

    Here, yet again, is the (incredible) response of the Vatican:
    Pontificia Commissio Ecclesia Dei
    Prot. 156/2009
    Vatican City, 23 May 2012

    Your Excellency,

    This Pontifical Commission has received, via your Excellency’s good offices, a copy of a correspondence from [name blacked out] placing before the Commission two dubia as to the interpretation of article 19 of this Commission’s Instruction Universae Ecclesiae.

    The first [dubium] asked whether legitimas in UE, article 19, is to be understood as meaning:

    (a) Duly promulgated by appropriate procedures of ecclesiastical law (ius ecclesiasticum); or

    (b) In accord with both ecclesiastical law and divine law (ius divinum), that is, neither doctrinally unorthodox nor otherwise displeasing to God.

    This Pontifical Commission would limit itself to saying that legitimas is to be understood in the sense of 1(a).

    The second [dubium] is responded to by this answer.

    With the hope that Your Excellency will communicate the contents of this letter to the individual concerned, this Pontifical Commission takes this opportunity to renew its sentiments of esteem.

    Sincerely yours in Christ
    Mons. Guido Pozzo

    For further information:

    No Catholic should attend the Novus Ordo Mass. It is injurious to, nay, fatal, to the Catholic Faith and the individual soul. I speak from personal experience. I was so lukewarm I nearly lapsed. However, I swam out to the lifeboat left by +Lefebvre. However I only attend monthly, if that. It costs me £30 for the train to Preston, and I still cannot get on Sundays, so I go on the First Saturday. In my local parish church, they have started doing a Ukrainian (Eastern Catholic) Divine Liturgy on the 4th Sunday, which is beautiful and uplifting. So I would say to any Catholic, only attend the Novus Ordo in extremis or special occasions, viz., weddings, funerals and baptisms. Attending Rosary and Benediction, the Stations of the Cross and Confession is fine, but avoid the Novus Ordo.

    Waterside4, you must stop attending the New Mass. Get a 1962 Missal from Angelus or Baronius Press, and say a Dry Mass in lieu of attending the Novus Ordo. Do that and make the same devotions as you would at Mass, i.e. Rosary, Stations etc. You can also make a spiritual communion. As for you saying you were ‘honoured’ to be an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist- not your job. It is a grave sin for you to dispense Holy Communion. My PP allowed a laywoman to distribute the Body. I complained to Bishop Marcus Stock of Leeds, he never got back. Nowt done.

    Are there any Eastern Rite liturgies in Tayside? No need for you to understand Ukrainian. Be careful though, they receive Communion (both Body and Blood) on a golden spoon.

    December 29, 2015 at 7:28 pm
    • toseetimefly

      This is one of the best replies I’ve ever read!

      December 30, 2015 at 2:58 pm
  • Lily

    The attraction of the new Mass is that it is easy to follow, no missal required, can be great fun with pop type songs, and there is nothing said to seriously challenge anybody. Everybody knows we can’t cut down on our carbon footprint, we’re not about to stop using cars and planes, so the homilies go right over everyone’s head. If the priest is saying it “reverently” that’s all the better. The criticism that it is man or people centred instead of God-centred is actually one of the attractions!

    December 29, 2015 at 7:44 pm
  • RCA Victor


    I think the word “attraction” in your post introduction might be a non-essential factor in many cases. I say that because I know quite a few NO Catholics who, while they are not pleased with it, or even find some vague discomfort with it, attend this abomination simply because it is what they think the Church has promulgated. That said, however, there are indeed some other NO Catholics (including priests, sad to say) who were, apparently, quite happy to see the Old Rite “put on the shelf.”

    What say we start a list, including what may attract?

    1. Catholics don’t know their Faith, and so think that a rite with a few retained accidentals from the Old Rite is satisfactory, i.e. fulfills their obligation.
    2. Catholics are not serious about practicing their Faith.
    3. Catholics are happy to do whatever the Church commands them to do.
    4. Catholics like Mass in their own tongue (hat tip, CC1).
    5. Catholics like things simplified and casual (hat tip, CC1).
    6. Catholics like the “active participation” scam, including “serving” on various committees and councils, because it makes them feel pious (or, he said cynically, because they like to show off).
    7. Catholics who don’t know their Faith fall easily into the “Mass = entertainment” pit.
    8. As a follow-up to #7, Catholics who are secularized are uncomfortable with mystery and silence.
    9. Catholics have been indoctrinated into believing that the “Lefebvrists” are schismatics, rebels, neanderthals, nostalgics, fill-in-the-perjorative blank, so they think (or feel, since this is the age of emotion) that participating in the Old Rite is somehow disobedient.
    10. The TLM is seen as preferable, but is not easily accessible (cf. Waterside4).
    11. There is comfort in numbers and being part of the “mainstream.”
    12. Catholics are attached to the parish in which they were raised.
    13. Catholics don’t want to hear about the Four Last Things, esp. Three of them, from the pulpit. They’d rather hear about “love,” “tolerance,” “diversity,” and, apparently, “climate change.”

    That number seems to be a good place to stop….over to you, Editor…

    December 29, 2015 at 8:47 pm
  • Athanasius


    While I do not doubt your genuine sincerity, I have to say that you need to find some way of getting back to the old Mass. You seem to be completely oblivious to the liberalism that has crept into your Catholic soul through exposure to decades of the Modernist claptrap you have just recited as the norm at your parish, Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament aside.

    “Honoured to be an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.” You’re kidding, right? A man of your years should know that this is about as wrong as it gets. Unconsecrated hands touching the Blessed Sacrament because the priest is too lazy or too liberal to be bothered. This is even against the teaching of John Paul II. I can’t imagine how people of your years can be talked into such an irreverence, knowing the old teaching as you do.

    As for your parish priest marching up and down the aisle while giving a sermon. What that is is pure showmanship. The man is a show off, a performer priest whose trying more to entertain than instruct the souls of his flock. You’re better well out of that place, or, if you feel you must attend the New Mass for conscience’ sake, then just go to Mass, say your prayers privately and leave. Have nothing to do with those other heathen gymnastics.

    Is there no way you can get a friend or member of your family to drive you the distance to the Traditional Mass in Glasgow or Edinburgh once a week, or even once a month? I know people who travel by public transport from a much further distance than you. The question really is: What trouble is your eternal salvation worth?

    If you absolutely can’t make Mass in either city, then perhaps some arrangement could be made for a Traditional priest to pay you a monthly visit at your house. But please, no more Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion or other activity in that church, Expostion excepted. Avoid all novelties at all costs!

    December 29, 2015 at 8:51 pm
    • westminsterfly


      I found the 1997 Vatican document which states about Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist – it is here:-

      The relevant passage is:- “Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at eucharistic celebrations ONLY (emphasis mine) when there are no ordained ministers present or when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion. They may also exercise this function at eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and which would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion”. The document ends by saying:- “The Supreme Pontiff, in Audience of the 13th of August 1997 approved ‘in forma specifica’ this present Instruction and ordered its promulgation” and it was co-signed by heads of many other dicasteries.

      If one were attending Mass then obviously there would be an ordained minister present, so this effectively removes the need for an extraordinary minister at all Masses. I cannot think of one example in a parish setting where there would be so many people present, that the distribution of Holy Communion would be ‘excessively prolonged’. When I used to attend the Novus Ordo in my parish, it was my experience that the priest used two extraordinary ministers at each Mass – even for weekday Masses which were not well attended. Totally unnecessary and wrong.

      December 30, 2015 at 2:21 pm
  • Frankier

    What about baptisms, confessions, first communions, marriages, sick calls etc., if there were no Traditional Masses available and a person breaks ties with the NO?

    If everyone stopped going to the NO then there would be no one left to attend, or be ordained in, the old Mass when, if ever, it returns.

    Just how many years would it take now to return to the pre Vatican 2 days? Certainly a lot longer than it did to get rid of it.

    It is all very well talking about a “dry Mass” but it is not everybody: in fact, very few, who could stick to this discipline for any length of time.

    Personally, I envy, or maybe I don’t, those people who are able to plan for days, months or even years ahead.

    I can not plan in the morning for the rest of the day without something cropping up and it certainly isn’t because I am undisciplined.

    Even attending Mass, I have been in at least 9 churches over the past three months covering a radius of around 50 miles and it’s not as if I’m a double glazing salesman or a member of the travelling community and only one, on Christmas Day, has it been in the morning.

    A list of the churches can be granted on request 😇

    December 29, 2015 at 10:11 pm
    • Athanasius


      I understand what you’re saying, and I would not advise anyone to stop attending the New Mass if their conscience dictates otherwise. If they do attend the NO I usually advise that they at least try to keep the other Traditions, such as kneeling and receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, resisting novelties like hand shaking and returning Father’s “good morning” greetings, etc. Just say your prayers at the foot of the Cross and let all else pass over your head.

      To be honest though, I think there are way too many Catholics not prepared to put themselves out to get to a Traditional Mass. It’s a far cry from the days of the Reformation when priests and laity were sometimes forced to walk a hundred miles to get Mass.

      December 29, 2015 at 10:45 pm
      • Frankier


        I do the things you say as well as going early to say the rosary. I don’t accept the chalice from unconsecrated hands and I give tithes of all I possess. Only kidding about the tithes, although I should be fasting twice a week.

        I have noticed at times that an odd child will sometimes stare at the rosary beads as if trying to work out what they are, so I feel that a link with the past is still there when folk like myself attend the NO.

        I may be havering but if the Traditional Mass is ever to return then the
        sheeple will have to be lead back and it certainly won’t be by the clergy.

        December 30, 2015 at 2:06 pm
      • Athanasius


        Those children who look at you inquisitively when you recite the rosary are probably saying to themselves ‘he must be one of those narcissistic neo pelagians that Pope Francis warned us about’! Either that or they’ll be thinking you’re a visiting Muslim playing with his worry beads!

        Tragic as it is, a majority of those “sheeple” you speak of don’t want to be led back to the Traditional Mass. They’re quite happy in their sheared and shepherdless state.

        December 30, 2015 at 3:25 pm
    • RCA Victor


      If a person breaks ties with the NO because he finds it a violation of his faith, or worse, then would you agree that he must also break ties with all the NO sacraments – which, just like the new Mass, have been watered down, Protestantized, secularized, Freemasonized, etc.? That is to say, the revolution engulfed and eclipsed the entire Church, not just the Mass.

      Also, two responses to other statements:

      “If everyone stopped going to the NO then there would be no one left to attend, or be ordained in, the old Mass when, if ever, it returns.” Not true. What about the SSPX, or the Fraternity?

      “It is all very well talking about a “dry Mass” but it is not everybody: in fact, very few, who could stick to this discipline for any length of time. On what basis do you make this generalization? How can you claim to know how many Catholics would persevere under these conditions?

      Finally, I’d be interested to know why you have been in 9 churches over the past 3 months. Have you not found what you’re looking for?

      December 29, 2015 at 11:38 pm
      • editor

        RCA Victor,

        I think Frankier’s job means he is travelling all over the place, hence the 9 churches. From memory, I believe he has very unsociable hours and his situation is generally not conducive to getting him where we’d like him to be – in an SSPX chapel, ideally! Or any of the other TLMs now available in Scotland. It’s what they call “one of those things” so go easy on Frankier.

        December 29, 2015 at 11:48 pm
      • RCA Victor

        Thanks Editor, it wasn’t clear to me what he meant by “…it’s not as if I’m a double glazing salesman or a member of the travelling community.”

        December 30, 2015 at 12:37 am
      • Frankier

        RCA Victor

        “Have you not found what you are looking for”?

        What an insulting statement.

        Do you think I am some kind of a moron wandering the face of the earth with a glazed look on my face?

        I found what I was looking for when I was serving the Tridentine Mass as an altar boy so I would hardly, at my age, be wasting precious time and fuel visiting NO churches searching for something in vain.

        Anyway, if I had been “looking for” anything I would have given up after visiting the second church.

        Circumstances, that’s the reason I attend various churches. Some people are quite busy, you know. If you had been paying attention you would have noticed that I said I envied people who could plan ahead.

        For an example: I planned to carry out renovation works this morning,
        15 miles from my yard but I had to remain at home to fix wind damage on my garage roof. Believe it or not, the same roof was perfect only yesterday.

        This is only one example of many but it might be enough for you to work out the answer to your own query without me going into the you-know-what of my entire life story.

        As for my generalisation: I know what human beings are like but to expect some people to stay at home and have their own wee private services in a back room of their house, to me anyway, is bordering on a joke.

        December 30, 2015 at 2:29 pm
      • RCA Victor


        My question was an innocent one, in fact a rather solicitous one, not being familiar with your circumstances, and not knowing, as I replied to Editor above, what you meant by the double glazing salesman comment. So I apologize for giving offense. I certainly did not mean to.

        December 30, 2015 at 3:36 pm
      • editor

        RCA Victor,

        Talking about double glazing salesmen, I knew one, once, and he got very dispirited because people were closing their doors on him and slamming down the phone on him and he couldn’t make a living at all. One day, he was really downhearted and told his wife he was thinking of ending it all.

        She told him to give himself a shake, that she would go and put on his dinner while he rang the Good Samaritans to get some professional support. Off she went and he dialled the number.

        “Samaritans, can I help you?” said the friendly voice on the other end of the phone.

        “Well, I hope so. I’m very depressed and thinking of “checking out”, if you know what I mean.”

        “Oh, I know what you mean, but you mustn’t do that – nothing is ever that bad. What is causing you to be so depressed?”

        “My job” he said, almost in a sob.

        “Oh dear, no job is worth ending your life for” the pleasant lady continued. “What is it that you do?”

        “Double Glazing salesman” he replied…


        You have to laugh! 😀

        December 30, 2015 at 10:57 pm
      • RCA Victor


        I’m sure I would laugh if I had the slightest clue as to what a “double glazing salesman” was. To me that is a reference to a replacement window salesman, so have mercy on a poor ignorant Yank, wouldja?

        December 31, 2015 at 12:14 am
      • editor


        “Do you think I am some kind of a moron wandering the face of the earth with a glazed look on my face?”

        Really, Frankier, you must stop this humility thing. You’re getting as bad (or should that be “good”?) as Pope Francis. I don’t think you’re (1) some kind of moron (2) wandering the face of the earth and as for (3) with a glazed look on my face…

        Well two out of three isn’t bad 😀

        December 30, 2015 at 10:50 pm
      • Petrus

        I disagree, especially with regards to Confession. I know from my own circumstances that if I only went to Confession at a SSPX chapel then I wouldn’t receive absolution very often . Believe me, I need to go to Confession regularly!

        December 30, 2015 at 2:41 pm
      • RCA Victor

        I need to go often as well, Petrus, but it bothers me that the words of N.O. Absolution have been changed, along with everything else. Not only that, but I would be liable to find myself sitting face-to-face with the priest, instead of in the traditional manner. Speaking of that novelty, has it become widespread in Scotland?

        December 30, 2015 at 3:41 pm
      • Petrus

        All that is required is for the priest to say “I absolve you”. It is better for the invocation of the Trinity to follow but not essential. Having said that, I have found a few Novus Ordo priests who are good confessors and I stick with them when I can’t get to a SSPX priest.

        Sent from my Samsung device

        December 30, 2015 at 4:01 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        RCA Victor,

        The fundamental Form of the Sacrament has not been changed. The Priest says, after your examination of conscience, whilst blessing you:

        ‘I absolve you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’.

        Two SSPX Priests told me that the main problem with NO Confessions these days is that the orthodoxy of the Priest might be questionable.

        I am worried that you are developing a schismatic mind-set regarding your comments on the NO Sacraments as being ‘Secularised’, ‘Protestantised’ and ‘Freemasonised’. As for your latter comment, I’ve never been absolved in the ‘name of the Grand Architect of the Universe’.

        I will quote you one of the SSPX Priests here:

        ‘With regard to the validity of Novus Ordo ordinations, the SSPX position is that these are again per se valid, but could be invalid per accidens. Priests coming to Tradition are not automatically re-ordained conditionally, but may request conditional re-ordination if they have a good reason.

        The main reason why SSPX priests counsel against going to Novus Ordo confessors is not that there exists a remote possibility that there ordination might be invalid, but that there is a much greater likelihood that a penitent will receive bad advice, or at the very least not be helped to make a full confession of grave sins according to number and kind. If you have found a good confessor, however, then this danger is absent.’

        The other Priest seconded this without equivocation. There is no danger in my confessions as my PPs are very good and my Opus Dei Confessor is excellent beyond words. If you knew him there would be no doubt in your mind.

        I’m not railing at you or trying to derail this thread, I am motivated by Christian and brotherly concern.

        December 30, 2015 at 4:18 pm
      • RCA Victor

        I appreciate your responses, catholicconvert1, and didn’t take them negatively.

        December 30, 2015 at 4:28 pm
      • editor

        RCA Victor,

        I’ve checked this fairly recently with an SSPX priest, who confirms what Petrus says: as long as the priest says “I absolve you”, that’s all that is required for the Sacrament to be valid.

        December 30, 2015 at 10:59 pm
      • catholicconvert1

        RCA Victor,

        ‘What about the SSPX or the Fraternity’. I assume you mean the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter? The FSSP Priests are ordained by Novus Ordo Bishops, such as Cardinal Burke, ordained by Paul VI in 1975. If you associate with the FSSP or ICKSP, then you are not ‘breaking ties’ with the NO Sacraments. Even if the FSSP Priests are ordained in the pre-1968 Rite, they are being ordained by Bishops ordained and consecrated after 1968. They are the ‘Protestantised’ and ‘Freemasonised’ Sacraments you refer to under a traditional disguise.

        We’ve already tilted at this particular windmill on another thread, my friend.

        December 30, 2015 at 4:06 pm
      • editor

        RCA Victor,

        No, there is no need to stop, for example, going to Confession in a diocesan parish church – I do it regularly. As long as the correct words of absolution are said, (and that boils down to “I absolve you”) then the sacrament is valid, and the same applies to the other sacraments – as long as the correct matter and form are used, the Sacrament is valid, as we already know about the novus ordo Mass.

        We have to be very careful to avoid creating a new dogma: “outside the SSPX there is no salvation.”

        December 30, 2015 at 10:47 pm
      • morgana

        i dont agree at all with these comments.if you are attending the traditional mass and are fortunate to be able to go every week for mass and presumably you would be going because you dont agree with the changes that have happened over the passed fifty years why is it ok to use the modern day priest for the sacraments .Lets be honest it has nothing to do with whether the sacrament is valid or not as we have long established that with the correct matter and form it is it all boils down to imho a bit hypocritical.these are priests which no one has a problem complaining about their acceptance of modernism and the new mass but he ho i dont mind using them to recieve the sacraments these very self same modernist priests.

        December 31, 2015 at 12:15 am
      • Athanasius


        If you confuse the person of the priest with the power of his holy orders then you are on a short lead to schism with the Church. The fact is that these priests have the power to forgive sins, regardless of their personal traits. If, therefore, they use the correct matter in confession then their confessions are perfectly valid before God. Even an excommunicated priest can absolve when there is danger of death, that’s the power of holy orders.

        December 31, 2015 at 1:16 am
      • morgana

        i have absolutely not confused the person of the priest with the power of his holy orders and am in no way on a short lead to schism as you said above.i clearly stated that it has long been established that with the correct matter and form the sacrament is valid so may i suggest closer reading off what is written.i just dont agree with using the church and the priest.

        December 31, 2015 at 2:40 am
      • morgana

        and by using i dont mean availing yourself of their priestly duties.

        December 31, 2015 at 3:01 am
      • Athanasius


        We Catholics make use of the grace of God wherever it is to be found. If you were on your death bed and the only priest available to you was your local parish priest, would you say no on the grounds that it is hypocritical?

        Whether you meant it or not, your comment about Traditional Catholics refraining from confessing to modern priests was very dangerous, and I’m sure you can see why.

        Of course it is preferable for Traditional Catholics to confess to Traditional priests wherever possible, if only for the sake of guaranteed sound instruction/advice. But as far as absolving sins is concerned, the Traditional priest and the modern priest, provided proper matter is present, have the same power to absolve.

        It is the business of Traditional Catholics to reject only those things which are dangerous to faith in the modern Church, like the New Mass, ecumenism, etc. That’s our remit, nothing more.

        December 31, 2015 at 9:36 am
      • 3littleshepherds

        Morgana may mean you’re sounding flaky about supplied jurisdiction. Some Catholics claim a need on Sundays but the weekday NO confessions are fine? Flaky.
        I would ask the NO priest “Would you absolve me if I confessed receiving communion in the hand at your parish? Would you absolve me if I had been to an Anglican service or if I attended your Mass and know it’s a sin?” Some actually might, God bless them. I think you will find the schismatic mentality among the wimpy NO priests not good Catholics like Morgana.

        December 31, 2015 at 7:44 pm
      • editor


        No “good Catholic” believes the heresy that “outside the SSPX there is no salvation.” Archbishop Lefebvre didn’t preach that, nor does Bishop Fellay. Our SSPX priests have never preached that all the sacraments are invalid or untrustworthy. I doubt if you have heard any saying so either. It’s our Society priests who have assured us, in and out of the pulpit, that it is acceptable to confess to a NO priest, the form and matter being correct. Otherwise, in fact, most of us would never get to Confession – the priests can only spend short spells hearing confessions before and after Mass before dashing off elsewhere to offer Mass.

        In any case, it’s not up to any individual to decide who fits the description “good Catholic” and who doesn’t. We were always taught – and the writings of the saints and mystics confirms this – that the minute we think well of ourselves, that we are humble, for example, or holy, then we can be absolutely certain that we’re not.

        Of course, they didn’t know about me when they wrote that but you’ll get my drift 😀

        December 31, 2015 at 7:49 pm
      • morgana

        And who are you editor making widespread generalisation that this is the mentality of people like me I have never once said confessing to no priest was invalid I have never adhered to the heresy that outside the sspx there is no salvation and I have never described myself as being a good Catholic although I try my best or as being humble but clearly your sweeping statement says it all and is gospel not is this not a blog of opinions or is it toe the party line or else whilst it is perfectly acceptable for you to use the no priests for the sacraments that s up to you I don’t agree it with it but I am in no way schismatic as I have stated numerous times with the correct form and matter the confession is valid.

        January 1, 2016 at 3:52 am
      • Petrus

        Next Christmas I’d ask Santa to bring you a comma!

        Sent from my Samsung device

        January 1, 2016 at 6:34 am
      • Athanasius


        I’ve been in the SSPX camp for thirty years, confessing regularly to SSPX priests along the way, so I don’t think you or Morgana can lecture me about supplied jurisdiction. I supported that canonical truth at the height of SSPX persecution back in the 1980s.

        The point I was making, and I can’t see how anyone could misunderstand, is that the NO priests, provided they use the correct form of words, can absolve penitents as validly as SSPX priests. I have many times confessed to NO priests and have no scruples about it. I have yet to meet an SSPX priest who thinks or speaks like you and Morgana in the matter.

        December 31, 2015 at 8:24 pm
      • Petrus


        I agree with you entirely. It’s a monstrous ideology that says we can only confess to SSPX priests and I will always challenge such schismatic nonsense.

        I’ve spoken quite openly to SSPX priests about confessing to diocesan priests and they have never batted an eyelid. I’ve also known of SSPX priests to socialise with other priests and be a source of information, instruction and support to diocesan priests.

        No, this schismatic nonsense doesn’t come from the SSPX. Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay have never promoted this mentality – in fact, they have warned against it. It has no place in the Catholic Church.

        Sent from my Samsung device

        December 31, 2015 at 8:42 pm
      • morgana

        How dare you Petrus suggest that I am schismatic who do you think you are you don’t even know do you think you know my inner soul how revolting to judge another .Not once have I suggested the no confession were not valid I simply disapprove when traditional Catholics have the sacraments on tap but use the no priests when they are against their acceptance of the changes don’t use them then don’t you dare presume to compare me to this schismatic nonsense I would neveraattest to anything that was contrary to our lords teaching try having a look at yourself and your lack of Catholic charity accusing others of things you have no proof to be true

        January 1, 2016 at 3:28 am
      • Petrus

        What an angry rant! I’m not going to waste my time responding to this diatribe. Your original post on this matter says it all, so there is no need to go round the houses.

        Sent from my Samsung device

        January 1, 2016 at 6:33 am
      • Athanasius

        I suggest that there has been a great misunderstanding here between long-time bloggers, so my advice is that we all now stop discussing this subject and let tempers cool.

        We are advised by the saints never to write in anger, so let us take a breather and move on.


        I don’t believe for one moment that you are a schismatic, but you have to admit that your original comment was pretty dangerously worded. I first mistook it for a schismatic mentality. I know now that it was not.

        January 1, 2016 at 1:00 pm
      • morgana

        Who Is lecturing ?who mentioned supplied jurisdiction? Oh that’s right it was you athanasius your right its not hard to understand confession in the no church is valid I can’t have made myself any clearer about that I didn’t suggest you should have scruples about confessing to a no priest I just don’t happen to agree with using these priests when the sacraments are readily available I presume where you worship.More than once editor I have noticed you always revert to the the same old chestnut that people are acting that there is no salvation out side the sspx absolutely wrong in my case these are not my sentiments however they are providing the traditional mass in accordance with how our lord would want.I look forward to the day when the church is as one again

        December 31, 2015 at 10:28 pm
      • morgana

        Oh and before any one else should cast aspersions about what I mean I don’t mean the no church as a separate church I more meant in a modern parish.

        December 31, 2015 at 10:31 pm
      • Athanasius


        It was 3littleshepherds who suggested that you might be referring to supplied jurisdiction. I merely responded to that suggestion in general.

        You indicated in your original comment that those who attend SSPX Masses yet confess to modern parish priests are guilty of a kind of hypocrisy. Now you seem to have modified that view somewhat, and thankfully so.

        If you have a personal distaste for confessing to a parish priest, that’s fine, it’s your choice. The fact remains, however, that for a number of reasons, others do use local parish priests for confession. There;s nothing against faith in this, and cetainly nothing hypocritical. It’s a pity you posted that original comment.

        December 31, 2015 at 11:01 pm
      • 3littleshepherds


        If you and Editor and Petrus want to go to wimpy NO priests, that’s on your head. I never said your sins wouldn’t be forgiven, only God knows what those priests think anyway since they’re co – operating with the destruction of the Church. Maybe some actually believe sin is a reality. But you know that when modernists say “Your sins are forgiven” they may mean “healing therapy” and innocent lambs are clueless.
        I will say you have any itchy trigger finger when it comes to accusing fellow Catholics of schismatic mentality tendacies. Call me that and I’ll call you flaky.

        January 2, 2016 at 12:41 am
      • 3littleshepherds

        This is was written by an SSPX priest and what we have always been counseled:
        “Furthermore, I do not hesitate to strongly recommend against going to confession to such a priest, even when there is an assurance of a valid absolution. A penitent does not go to confession simply to receive the absolution of his sins. He has the desire to receive all the effects of the sacrament, including the direction, and if need be reprimand of the confessor, growth in the love of God and in sanctifying grace, a firmer purpose of amendment and the satisfaction of the temporal punishment due to his sins. All this is only possible if he sees in the confessor a judge, a teacher, and a physician. It is to guarantee these full effects of the sacrament of Penance that the Church supplies jurisdiction so that the faithful can ask any priest to hear their confessions, for any just reason (canon 2261, §2, 1917 Code and canon 1335 of the 1983 Code).

        Manifestly it is not possible to have confidence in the guidance of a priest who compromises with modernism by celebrating the New Mass, even if he otherwise appears orthodox. Neither his judgment as to the reality of our contrition, nor his instruction as to the gravity of our sins, nor his remedies for the ills of our sins can be depended upon. The supernatural vision of Faith will necessarily have been undermined by the humanism and naturalism of the New Mass and the spirit of Vatican II. Our souls are much too precious to place in the hands of those who lack conviction.

        Consequently, outside case of danger of death, it is preferable to make an act of perfect contrition, and to wait until one can open one’s soul to a traditional priest that can be trusted.”

        I know “schismatic mentality”. lol
        Actually very very good advice from a priest who loves your soul.

        January 2, 2016 at 1:04 am
      • Athanasius


        And what is this SSPX priest’s name? It sounds to me like he has drifted miles away from the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre. Is he a “Resistance” priest by any chance? He sounds like one.

        I’ve come across one or two such hard nosed SSPX priests in my 30 years association with the Society. And you’re absolutely right, they do have a schismatic mentality.

        Whether you like it or not, your comments today cannot be reconciled with what the Archbishop taught up to his death, or what Bishop Fellay teaches now.

        Your rather angry analysis boils down to a declaration that doubt exists over the validity of non-SSPX confessions. That’s the only meaning to be taken from your words: “But you know that when modernists say “Your sins are forgiven” they may mean “healing therapy” and innocent lambs are clueless…”

        Well, I have to tell you that I have never heard Archbishop Lefebvre or any other SSPX superior speak of NO confessions in this way, so you must have come to this conclusion all by yourself. That’s dangerous!

        January 2, 2016 at 1:28 am
      • Athanasius


        “…A penitent does not go to confession simply to receive the absolution of his sins…

        …Consequently, outside case of danger of death, it is preferable to make an act of perfect contrition, and to wait until one can open one’s soul to a traditional priest that can be trusted…”

        A penitent does go to confession primarily to receive the absolution of his sins, especially if they are mortal sins which the Church has always declared should be confessed at the earliest opportunity, lest one die in grave sin.

        As for reciting an act of “perfect contrition” and waiting for the right priest to offer the added extras of confession, such as the grace of good priestly counsel, it is rare indeed for souls to make a perfect act of contrition.

        You will doubtless know the teaching of the Church that a perfect act of contrition is a special grace that renders the soul so contrite for having offended God that the greatness of the sorrow equals or supasses the gravity of the sin repented. Two examples would be the repentance of St. Peter and that of St. Mary Magdalene. It is an act of sorrow borne of the pure love of God.

        Sadly, it is the lot of most Catholics not to have such a sorrow. What the majority tend to have is rather a fear of going to Hell, with of course some genuine remorse for having offended the goodness of God. This is called attrition, which still merits the absolution of the priest but does not necessarily remit all temporal punishment due to the sin, as in the case of perfect contrition.

        The point I’m making is that the SSPX in question appears to be either ignorant or dismissive of this Traditional teaching.

        Now, I am not saying that a Traditional priest is not by far the best confessor for souls to go to. What I am saying is that, given the practicalities, this can be difficult for many souls for quite a long period of time. Hence, since absolution for sins is the most essential element of confession, it is perfectly legitimate for souls to confess to local parish priests whose absolutions are sound. All the other aspects this SSPX priest mentions are good and wholesome, but not as essential as having first the burden of sin removed from the soul and grace restored. Any priest can validly do this, such is the mercy of God even in a great crisis.

        January 2, 2016 at 2:19 am
      • Athanasius


        A little typo in one of my responses. “The SSPX in question” should read “the SSPX priest in question”.

        And here’s one more thought on the subject.

        If all Catholics were capable of making an act of “perfect contrition” every time they sinned, venially or mortally, then there would be no need for Purgatory. And yet the Church teaches that the majority of Catholic souls who die in a state of grace are likely to pass through that place of purgation to pay the temporal debt due to sins confessed (and absolved) imperfectly. That demonstrates all by itself how rare “perfect contrition” is.

        January 2, 2016 at 2:34 am
      • editor


        I wonder if the SSPX priest whom you claim to quote, would approve of your most uncharitable attack on all “novus ordo” priests as “wimpy”. Our SSPX priests certainly wouldn’t.

        The younger diocesan priests, for example, those who were born into the modern Church and knew nothing of the traditional Faith, cannot be blamed for their predicament. Indeed, you might apply that adjective to the priests who went along with the so called “reforms” of Vatican II, the hitherto “traditional” priests.

        One young priest said to me a couple of years ago “But I was ordained to say the new Mass…” They are confused, those of good will, so it is a mistake to write them off as “wimpy”. We all have a duty to keep ourselves informed and to know our Faith so there is certainly a case for accusing those who may be going along to get along, of negligence, possibly a lack of doing their conscientious duty, that’s for sure, but that is an objective, qualified view (IF they are negligent etc), not a personal attack. Name-calling is never a good idea, and tends to weaken one’s case. If, that is, one even has a case 😀

        There are priests, from all age groups, who are either learning or re-learning the traditional Mass and who are experiencing persecution, to greater or lesser degrees, from their bishops as a result. I wish I could say more on the subject, but that would be to betray confidences and risk bringing further wrath down on the heads of such brave priests. Suffice to say that I know a number of diocesan priests who are suffering greatly in the current crisis and it is unjust, in the extreme, to write them off as “wimps”.

        On the matter of ignoring advice in the confessional in diocesan churches; I agree that if there is any such spiritual counsel offered, any informed Catholic should, as in every other context, weigh that against the known truths of the Faith. I have never been offered any such counsel in Confession, beyond being exhorted to make more of an effort to overcome my lack of charity, duly deserved and noted, but I doubt very much that many contemporary diocesan priests are offering advice, unless sought, in confessional boxes today.

        January 2, 2016 at 11:47 am
      • sixupman

        Indeed since the 70’s diocesan clergy and SSPX clergy have had joint cordial relations also with regard to ‘learning’ The Mass. Within the present context [Franciscus] that situation is hardening and even ‘blogging’ clergy are openly expressing sympathy for the SSPX ethos. The diocesan bishops and their curiae are the problem.

        January 2, 2016 at 1:26 pm
      • 3littleshepherds


        You give me a big laugh. Do you seriously think that Bishop Fellay would say it’s hunky dorey to go to confession to a NO priests?! Too funny. How many letters have you written to Bishop Fellay helping him to make good judgements in running the SSPX? lol


        About your “Outside the SSPX there is no salvation” comedy routine, here is Archbishop Lefebvre on the subject;
        “This talk about the “visible Church” on the part of Dom Gerard and Mr. Madiran is childish. It is incredible that anyone can talk of the “visible Church”, meaning the Conciliar Church as opposed to the Catholic Church which we are trying to represent and continue. I am not saying that we are the Catholic Church. I have never said so. No one can reproach me with ever having wished to set myself up as pope. But, we truly represent the Catholic Church such as it was before, because we are continuing what it always did. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what makes the visible Church.”

        Here’s a few things Archbishop Lefebvre said to help people use the word “wimpy” and NO priest in the same sentence and to at least have second thoughts about choosing them for confession:

        “The corruption of the Holy Mass has brought the corruption of the priesthood and the universal decadence of Faith in the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

        “But if one does not know the source of errors, of what destroys societies, souls and the Church, we would be incompetent shepherds.”

        ” A 5 year-old child, opening his catechism, can very well say to the priest, or perhaps the bishop, who is teaching him something contrary to the truth taught in the catechism of all times, that child can say: ‘you are not telling the truth.’ And the priest or the bishop cannot reply, ‘you are judging your bishop, you are judging your priest.’ ‘No, I am judging neither my bishop nor my priest. My catechism is judging them.”

        “To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or the faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (He means the modernist movement within the Church that imposed the Novus Ordo)

        “The Catholic faithful have a strict right to know that the priests to whom they have recourse are not in communion with a counterfeit Church which is evolutionary, pentecostalist, syncretist.”
        (Abp. Lefebvre, Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin, Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops. Econe, 6th July, 1988.)

        “… the corruption of the Faith of numerous bishops and a great number of priests, monks and nuns. These clerics reason like the modernists and the protestants: witness the newly published book “Bishops Speak of the Faith of the Catholic Church.” The ideas of sanctifying grace, original sin, mortal sin and its consequences, of the expiatory Sacrifice of Our Lord which continues on our altars, are all spoiled. In their place one finds all the errors of liberalism, of Americanism, of Sillonism, and of modernism condemned by the Sovereign Pontiffs. Add to that the theology of liberation which is a marxist interpretation of the Gospel—a sacriligious and outrageous misinterpretation of Our Lord. Therefore, let us not be amazed that the patience of God is exhausted!” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 15)

        On deformed NO priests:
        “These young priests will not have the intention of doing that which the Church does, for they will not have been taught that the Mass is a true sacrifice. They will not have the intention of offering a sacrifice. They will have the intention of celebrating a Eucharist, a sharing, a communion, a memorial, all of which has nothing to do with faith in the Sacrifice of the Mass. Hence from this moment, inasmuch as these deformed priests no longer have the intention of doing what the Church does, their Masses will obviously be more and more invalid.” (Quoted in Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, The Mass of All Time, pp. 266-267

        “The union desired by these Liberal Catholics, a union between the Church and the Revolution and subversion is, for the Church, an adulterous union, adulterous. And that adulterous union can produce only illegitimates. And who are those illegitimates? They are our rites: the rite of Mass is an illegitimate rite, the sacraments are illegitimate sacraments – we no longer know if they are sacraments which give grace or which do not give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ or if it does not give them. The priests coming out of the seminaries do not themselves know what they are. In Rome it was the Archbishop of Cincinnati who said: “Why are there no more vocations? Because the Church no longer knows what a priest is.” How then can She still form priests if She does not know what a priest is? The priests coming out of the seminaries are illegitimate priests. They do not know what they are. They do not know that they were made to go up to the altar to offer the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to give Jesus Christ to souls, and to call souls to Jesus Christ. That is what a priest is. Our young men here know that very well. Their whole life is going to be consecrated to that, to love, adore, and serve Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.”

        January 2, 2016 at 9:31 pm
      • editor


        During all the fuss caused by the daft “resistance” (to nothing) bunch, one of the USA faithful Society priests pointed out that it is a mistake to quote Archbishop Lefebvre as if he had just spoken, that the Archbishop had not expected, remotely, that the crisis in the Church would go on this long, and that, even in his own lifetime, at a relatively early stage(s) in the crisis, he was known to withdraw certain statements. As an aside, I must point out that that makes him a stronger, not a weaker soul. In any case, nothing you have quoted is an authoritative statement prohibiting confessing to diocesan priests. Whether or not there have been changes to the rites, the litmus test remains the litmus test; matter, form and intention. If a priest pronounces the words of absolution (i.e. if even he only says “I absolve you”) then we can rest assured. No use mocking my warning that we must avoid thinking there is no salvation outside the SSPX and then argue precisely that case, which is what you’ve just done.

        Anyway, I think Archbishop Lefebvre might well agree with something Bishop Williamson wrote recently about the new Mass. I’ve copied it in full for you below, with a link to the original appended.

        The eucharistic miracles are where God shows that He Himself is truly there.

        Facts are stubborn — as long as they are facts.

        If readers doubt that the eucharistic miracle of 1996 in Buenos Aires is a fact, let them undertake their own research:… (embedded below, for ease of reference).


        But if their research of that case leaves them unconvinced, then let them look up the parallel case of Sokólka in Poland, where a whole centre of pilgrimage has arisen around a eucharistic miracle of 2008 (e.g.

        Editor: the above website has been permanently removed. I found this one which gives a straightforward account of the alleged miracle in Poland.

        And a little more Internet research would surely discover accounts of more such Novus Ordo miracles, with at least some of them being authentic.

        But how is that possible?

        Traditional Catholics absorb with their mother’s milk that the new rite of Mass (NOM) is an abomination in the eyes of God, and has helped to make countless Catholics lose the Faith. This is because the NOM, like Vatican II which it followed, is ambiguous, favours heresy and has led numberless souls out of the Church, whom regular attendance at the Protestantised rite has turned into virtual Protestants.

        Most Traditional Catholics should be familiar with the serious doctrinal problems of this new rite, designed to diminish the essential Catholic doctrines of the Real Presence, the propitiatory Sacrifice and the sacrificing priesthood, amongst others. Then how can God work with it, eucharistic miracles such as have made of Sokólka a national centre of pilgrimage for all Poland?

        Doctrinally, the NOM is ambiguous, poised between the religion of God and the Conciliar religion of man. Now in matters of faith, ambiguity is deadly, being normally designed to undermine the Faith, as the NOM frequently does. But as ambiguity is precisely open to two interpretations, so the NOM does not absolutely exclude the old religion.

        Thus by a devout priest its ambiguities can all be turned in the old direction. That does not make the NOM acceptable as such, because its intrinsic ambiguity still favours the new direction, but it does mean for instance that the Consecration can still be valid, as Archbishop Lefebvre never denied.

        Moreover, if the eucharistic miracles are genuine, clearly not all Consecrations of Novus Ordo bishops or Ordinations of Novus Ordo priests are invalid either. In brief, the NOM as such is bad as a whole, bad in parts, but not bad in all its parts.

        Now let us imagine, with the utmost respect, how Almighty God stands towards the new rite of Mass. On the one hand God loves his Church like the apple of His eye, and will preserve it to the end of the world (Mt. XVI, 18).

        On the other hand He has chosen to entrust its government to human and fallible churchmen, whom He will guide, but to whose free-will He evidently grants a remarkable degree of free play to govern it well or badly, starting with the betrayal of His own Son.

        Now in modern times the Revolution, be it Jewish, Masonic, communist or globalist, finds its main adversary in His Church, and it has worked especially on the Church’s leaders to make the Church collapse. Their most terrible success was Vatican II and its NOM, which were surely much more the fault of the shepherds than of the sheep. “The fort is betrayed even [by] them that should have defended it,” said St John Fisher at a parallel moment in the Reformation. Then how will God look after His sheep, many of whom – not all – are relatively innocent of the Conciliar betrayal?

        After Vatican II, some priests and laity had the grace to see immediately what a betrayal it was, and within a few years the Traditional movement was under way. To other sheep God gave the grace to see it later. But can we not all admit that there are many good Catholics who trusted their bishops, as good Catholics normally should do? And did not these bishops insist on the lie that the NOM was no different from the true Mass?

        What specified Vatican II and the NOM was precisely the officialisation of the modernist heresy within the Church. So does it not make sense that in punishment of their modern worldliness these sheep would broadly lose the true rite of Mass, while in reward of their desire for Mass they would not lose every valid Mass? But the Church’s future depends on the souls that understand the Revolution and utterly repudiate all ambiguities of Vatican II and the NOM.

        Kyrie eleison.

        Click here to reach original source.

        We now await, with some trepidation (amidst the amusement) the new Resistance-To-Bishop-Williamson movement! Especially when they read the following (taken from the conclusion of the next article on the NOM, same website):

        “…Therefore the NOM and the Novus Ordo Church as a whole are dangerous for the Faith, and Catholics are right who have clung to Tradition to avoid the danger. But as they have had to put a distance between themselves and the mainstream Church, so they have exposed themselves to the opposite danger of an isolation leading to a sectarian and even pharisaical spirit, disconnected from reality. There are true sacraments in the Novus Ordo and true Catholics, for whom God cares, and “Traditionalists” should be happy that there are. Let Traditionalists’ relative isolation not make them feel that they are bound to deny that there is anything Catholic at all left in the Novus Ordo. That is unreal, and reality’s pendulum will swing back… Tradition still needs isolation, but with a generous and not an isolationist spirit.” END.

        January 2, 2016 at 10:59 pm
      • Athanasius


        You wrote:


        You give me a big laugh. Do you seriously think that Bishop Fellay would say it’s hunky dorey to go to confession to a NO priests?! Too funny. How many letters have you written to Bishop Fellay helping him to make good judgements in running the SSPX? lol”

        The point that was made is that you do not speak for Bishop Fellay or the SSPX in the matter, since neither has stated as you have concerning NO confessions. You were pushing your own rather bitter opinion, not Bishop Fellay’s or the SSPX.

        By the way, I still await the name of that SSPX priest you quoted, if in fact he exists.

        And what of the other points I made concerning absolution, perfect contrition and Purgatory? Do you accept what I have written or do you wish to counter with some contrary Church teaching?

        January 3, 2016 at 12:11 am
      • Athanasius


        “we no longer know if they are sacraments which give grace or which do not give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ or if it does not give them.”

        You have quoted Archbishop Lefebvre out of context, or at the very least not in the full context of his remarks. His Grace was referring here to the possibility of invalidity by defective matter, form or intention. He was not making a blanket statement denouncing all NO Masses and Sacraments as invalid.

        If the words of absolution are correctly spoken by the priest, then it is a perfectly valid absolution. Even Archbishop Lefebvre would not have argued the contrary. Stop misrepresenting the intention behind his words to fit with your own unique opinion.

        January 3, 2016 at 12:29 am
      • 3littleshepherds


        That priest’s answer is on and was made by Fr. Scot. How rude of you to suggest I made it up.
        I have had 30 or more SSPX priests that I’ve known, confessed to, received Sacraments from. None of whom are resistance. Not one priest ever told me I should go to a NO priest for confession. On the contrary they said I should not. It is not recommended. This is the truth. No one ever said it was invalid. There is doubt.
        Are you going to try to say things against Fr. Scot, I don’t really think you will but prove me correct….
        Look Athanasius going to confession to a Novus Ordo priest is on your head. I don’t even know who you are.
        I quoted Archbishop Lefebvre’s own words. Take what you will from them.
        You guys are like no one I know who attends society masses. No one I know ever pops over to Father X at the parish church to go to confession.
        You do seem to all belong to a think tank of sorts and if anyone says well that’s not my experience you’re all over them like flies on honey. Not even when I chat with Society of St. Peter people have they done that. It’s always a good natured exchange.

        January 3, 2016 at 1:09 am
      • Athanasius


        Why didn’t you name Fr. Scott to begin with, or at least when asked previously to do so? You should always name your sources from the outset.

        So you have Fr. Scott’s opinion and other people have contrary SSPX priest opinions. The fact remains that the SSPX as an institution of the Church has never officially declared that the faithful cannot and must not confess to local parish priests. Authorities have certainly advised that it is best to confess to a Traditional priest if and when possible, but there is no moritorium on confessing to NO priests, just advice on what to look for and what to avoid during such confessions. You cannot escape that fact!

        So it is not we here on this blog who are a strange little think tank, but rather you who seems to be pushing an isolationist view of NO priests that is neither in the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre or the SSPX.

        I have highlighted already Fr. Scott’s error concerning perfect contrition, yet you insist that he is right and we are wrong. Well that’s perfectly fine, if you wish to ignore the evidence placed in front of you.

        The bottom line is that we are solidly SSPX here on this blog, some of us for many decades, but not in a bitter isolationist way towards all modern clergy. Our remit is solely to resist what is dangerous to faith, which does not include confessions where absolutions are validly administered.

        And by the way, it was you who came on here with an attitude calling those who confess to modern priests “hypocritical”, and calling NO priests “wimps”. That kind of angry outburst is never going to serve charity, justice or truth. Nor is it likely to produce a proper Catholic exchange of opinion that ends well.

        The fact is your opinion in this matter is wrong and your attitude in expressing it has been wrong. You have served only to generate bad feeling and confusion. We had enough of that with the so-called “Resistance” mob, thank you very much.

        If you wish to comment further on this subject, then do so with some official SSPX declaration in the matter, not your own or Fr. Scott’s opinion. We don’t do personal opinion when it comes to judging the validity of the Sacraments of the Church.

        January 3, 2016 at 1:49 am
      • 3littleshepherds

        I looked again and yes that quote by Father saying we should not go to the NO confessions is on so it’s official. What will you do? Write to Bishop Fellay and ask him to remove it? Do you write to him with your opinions? Maybe my intuition is off but… Have you written letters to the Bishop on other occasions about the positions of the SSPX? Are you guys like a lobby? I don’t know if that is a British term, sorry. Do you guys push or try to persuade the society to go in a certain direction?

        January 3, 2016 at 2:00 am
      • Petrus

        I remember a former District Superior of Great Britain issued an unjust condemnation of Catholic Truth on the UK website and newsletter. At the time, I wrote to Bishop Fellay about it and he certainly did not agree with the condemnation. In fact, he thanked us for our loyalty.

        No, 3 shepherds, just because something appears on the American website it doesn’t mean it’s the official position of the SSPX. I’m sorry but you are now making yourself look foolish.

        Sent from my Samsung device

        January 3, 2016 at 2:20 pm
      • 3littleshepherds

        I didn’t name Fr. Scott because it was on the SSPX website and that means more than his opinion.
        I also can prove NO are wimpy but I would over run this site with never ending examples. Plus my catechism says they’re wimpy. Open to confirmation…. It’s not me saying it my catechism does my stating what soldiers of Christ must do. And I know what the opposite is.
        When I was younger and didn’t have a ride to Mass I put on a backpack and went out to hitch hike rides. Do you know how crazy NO priests would think that was? Let them brace up and fight. Let them get persecuted and stand up like Fr. Zigrang. Otherwise yuck.

        January 3, 2016 at 2:14 am
      • Petrus

        That’s funny, I thought official statements from the SSPX came via a communique from Menzingen or from the mouth of the Superior himself. I didn’t know Fr Peter Scott was an official spokesman for Bishop Fellay.

        Your catechism does not say that Novus Ordo priests are “wimpy”. Not only is it a Protestantesque private interpretation of the catechism, it is completely uncharitable.

        Sent from my Samsung device

        January 3, 2016 at 8:17 am
      • 3littleshepherds

        Athanasius and Editor

        Here is a question to clear up any misunderstandings we might have.

        Are you stating that you know with certitude that Bishop Fellay is fine with my friends, family, me and any other person who attends SSPX masses going to our parish NO priest for confession whenever we want? Even if it involves no emergency? Does he also have no problem with the SSPX priests confessing to NO priests in their area?

        January 3, 2016 at 7:46 am
      • Athanasius

        “Are you stating that you know with certitude that Bishop Fellay is fine with my friends, family, me and any other person who attends SSPX masses going to our parish NO priest for confession whenever we want? Even if it involves no emergency? Does he also have no problem with the SSPX priests confessing to NO priests in their area?”

        Well there is nothing on record to suggest that Bishop Fellay has any such issue. More than that I can’t say, you’ll have to write to His Excellency and ask him.

        Our position is that neither Bishop Fellay nor indeed Archbishop Lefebvre has ever declared in favour of your opinion, or that of Fr. Peter Scott.

        And I have to tell you that Fr. Peter Scott’s opinion being present on is not representative of the official position of the SSPX in the matter. It is merely his opinion, which I have shown to be erroneous in respect to perfect contrition.

        As an aside, it was not that long ago that you and other poor souls like you would have been exposed in the confessional to the bitter schismatic opinions of SSPX priests who later left to form their own wee “Resistance” group. So, you really need to get your thinking cap on and weigh matters according to official teaching, and only official teaching.

        January 3, 2016 at 1:55 pm
      • 3littleshepherds

        Tell me how the NO priests are refusing to co-operate in the destruction of the Church. Tell me which ones stand up to their Bishop’s and say, “No More” Tell me which ones practice fortitude publicly to edify and inspire their congregation to oppose the errors in the Church? If you can name a few that’s only a few and they will no longer be NO priests.


        I have never been nor my family nor friends to a resistance priest for confession nor had one for my priest.

        Can I ask you guys some questions. When Bishop Williamson did his interview fiasco was that traumatic for you?
        Also when Editor tells that narrative about the NO priest saying ,”But I was ordained to say the new Mass.” how does she continue that? Does she think this priest needs a hybrid Mass like what people talk about? I mean do you guys campaign for things like that? Of course if a priest said that to me I would say , “Oh no you weren’t. You were robbed.” I know most of the NO priest who have become Traditional and I could not tell that they had been formed elsewhere because conversion, “turning your whole heart and soul towards God” orients them very quickly.

        January 3, 2016 at 5:30 pm
      • Petrus

        Your problem, 3 little shepherds, is that you are lacking basic Christian charity. You are judging these priests’ actions AND intentions. This is forbidden. God only reads the hearts of men.

        It has been explained to you many times that a lot of the younger priests today are completely innocent when it comes to the havoc wreaked by the changes to the Sacraments. So, it is rather unfair of you to judge them the way you are.

        With respect, you are indeed displaying a schismatic mentality. I think this mentality is more prevalent in the States, so thank the Lord we have, by and large, been spared that here.

        Sent from my Samsung device

        January 3, 2016 at 6:00 pm
      • 3littleshepherds


        Why does the Society offer confessions only to those who ask for them under supplied jurisdiction? And how does the Church supply that jurisdiction for me if I do not have a need for it, if I can go to confession to Fr. X down the street? Isn’t this illogical?

        January 3, 2016 at 5:42 pm
      • Michaela


        I’ve had to scroll up for ages to find a reply button, so I don’t know where this will end up , but I intended to reply to your statement that Fr Scott said nobody should attend confession to a NO priest. I cannot find any statement saying this on the site, only his comment answering the criticisms that Society priests cannot hear confessions, due to lack of proper jurisdiction. I copied the final paragraphs of his statement to paste here (see below) and yes, he defends the SSPX priests’ right to hear confessions, supplied jurisdiction etc, but he has not said we should not go to other priests for Confession. He makes the point that we should not have to search out priests who are sound on spiritual advice, but nowhere does he say that they cannot validly absolve: I’m now quoting Father Scott.

        “It is clear that, given the present circumstances of crisis in the Church and the principles of Canonical Equity, given the general principles of the law, and the Church’s continuous practice of supplying jurisdiction for the good of the faithful whenever it foresees that this lack of jurisdiction would be to their detriment, traditional priests receive supplied jurisdiction from the law. This is with the understanding that personal jurisdiction is unjustly refused to them simply because of their attachment to the Faith and its traditional expression (inseparable from the Faith), and that the faithful cannot be expected to continually search out and judge for themselves which confessors in the Conciliar Church might be acceptable and might give them the spiritual advice they need (given that the vast majority do not).

        In conclusion, therefore, it is obvious that, besides the case of common error, besides the case of probable and positive danger of death as interpreted in the broad sense of spiritual death, traditional priests receive a iure (from the law itself) a supplied jurisdiction for all cases in which this jurisdiction is required. This is simply the application of Canon 20, notably of Canonical Equity. There are no solid arguments against this and since there is at least a positive and probable doubt in favor of this argument, and we know that in such a case the Church certainly supplies jurisdiction, then traditional priests can and must act accordingly and the faithful can and should approach them for Confession.”

        So, Fr Scott merely recommends that the Society faithful approach the Society priests for confession, rather than search out the NO clergy who are reliable for spiritual advice. I don’t want any spiritual advice, just absolution, so I’ve no need to search. If you have another quote where he says what you say, that we must not go to a non-Society priest for Confession, then please post it with the link so we can read the whole article.

        January 3, 2016 at 6:56 pm
      • 3littleshepherds

        The errors ause them to me wimpy. It’s rash judgement of you to suggest I mean anything other than their actions. They are objectively wimpy, soft, and apparently never read or believe what was condemned before vatican ii. A click away from them to research. My stupid nephew knows more why? I will not talk to someone who only wants to insult me at least Athanasius is kind.

        Google fr. Scott novus ordo confessions or something. Maybe it’s in the archives.

        January 3, 2016 at 7:17 pm
      • Petrus

        3 little shepherds

        At no point did I insult you. You are doing a good enough job making yourself look foolish, not to mention schismatic, without me doing anything.

        Sent from my Samsung device

        January 3, 2016 at 7:54 pm
      • 3littleshepherds

        That’s the errors cause them to be wimpy

        January 3, 2016 at 7:18 pm
      • Athanasius


        Michaela’s posting of Fr. Scott’s appraisal really hits the nail on the head and demonstrates once and for all that you are wrong in your assumption that the SSPX forbids confessing to NO priests.

        Now, I recommend that in order to avoid further unpleasant exchanges in this matter, you should write to Bishop Fellay for a difinitive answer that will set your conscience at rest and bring an end to what was a nonsense intervention from Morgana at the outset, who seems to have since vanished.

        January 3, 2016 at 7:36 pm
      • Therese

        Reply button, reply button, wherefore art thou, RB?

        January 3, 2016 at 7:42 pm
      • Athanasius


        I didn’t see this earlier.


        Why does the Society offer confessions only to those who ask for them under supplied jurisdiction? And how does the Church supply that jurisdiction for me if I do not have a need for it, if I can go to confession to Fr. X down the street? Isn’t this illogical?”

        Because a majority of Traditional Catholics prefer to confess to a Traditonal priest, usually before Mass, preferring the sound advice such priests offer to their souls. The Modernist bishops tried to frighten the faithful away from Traditional Masses by claiming that SSPX priests did not have the faculty to forgive sins, which of course is untrue. Hence the SSPX clarification you posted above.

        To answer your question, then: Supplied jurisdiction is offered by the Church as an option of safety in a crisis, nothing more or less.

        January 3, 2016 at 7:46 pm
      • 3littleshepherds


        I never said the SSPX “FORBIDS” Catholics confessing to NO priests. I said they do not advise it and you deny it or blame it on schismatic mentality a cheap shot at winning an argument when the facts are against you.
        Here is Bishop Tissier de Malarais’ Supplied Jurisdiction explaination about concessions. Anyone can quickly find this by searching his name and Supplied Jurisdiction.

        “For confessions, you certainly remember that Archbishop Lefebvre invoked the principle of the “danger of spiritual death” of the faithful. Just see the unhappy faithful who have no priests of certain doctrine, and who sometimes even doubt the validity of their confessions: “Does this priest really have the necessary intention so as to validly absolve?” They can readily doubt this. “If I can no longer go to confession then I am exposed to fall and perhaps to fall into grave sins. Who knows? My eternal salvation is at risk, I am in danger of spiritual death.” The Church supplies, for the Church places ipso facto (by the fact itself) this Catholic under the jurisdiction of a priest. The Church places this Catholic as a sheep of a priest who will be his pastor for a determined case. Thus is established between the faithful Catholic and his priest a relationship as the sheep or the lamb with respect to the shepherd. The only thing is that this relationship of authority does not come from a delegation from the hierarchy of the Church, but by the Church, the Mystical Body of Our Lord, herself supplying.”

        You Athanasius are not agreeing with Archbishop Lefebvre nor Bishop de Malarais nor any SSPX priest I know. I agree with them. The NO priests can definitely be a danger to one’s soul.

        January 3, 2016 at 9:59 pm
      • Athanasius


        I read nothing in that quote from Bishop de Malarais that alters what has already been stated. We just seem to be going around in never ending circles.

        Now please, leave the matter alone. If you wish to clarify things for yourself, then write to Bishop Fellay. We on this blog have no doubts about what Archbishop Lefebvre and his SSPX have taught and continue to teach regarding NO confessions.

        January 3, 2016 at 10:27 pm
      • 3littleshepherds

        I don’t understand how any of you are giving the SSPX supplied jurisdiction to hear your confessions. You seem fine with your actual parish priest who has real jurisdiction. It’s an individual jurisdiction when it’s supplied and has to be based on a need. You are denying there is a personal need for yourselves. You’re saying your parish NO priest poses no danger for you and that you go to him for confession and everyone else should too. How do you fall back on the law?

        January 3, 2016 at 10:36 pm
      • 3littleshepherds

        You can’t answer because you are wrong. You won’t explain why there’s a need for supplied jurisdiction for confessions because it proves my point that NO priests are a danger to souls many times. You won’t admit there could be a danger in going to confession to them. Good time for you to end the debate. You’re out of lame explanations.
        Petrus I have always been obedient to my SSPX priests who advised me to not go to my NO priest. Blame him not me. Why would I listen to you when you treat me so obnoxiously?
        Oh goodbye Gabriel. I hope you have a happy life. I’ll pray for your family.

        January 3, 2016 at 10:59 pm
      • editor


        NOT ALL NO PRIESTS! That’s the key point that you are missing. You write as if every priest outside the SSPX is a danger to souls. Wrong!

        I’ve copied part of the Bishop’s quote below and put in bold the key words that you appear to be missing:

        “Just see the unhappy faithful who have no priests of certain doctrine, and who sometimes even doubt the validity of their confessions: “Does this priest really have the necessary intention so as to validly absolve?” They can readily doubt this. “If I can no longer go to confession then I am exposed to fall and perhaps to fall into grave sins. Who knows? My eternal salvation is at risk, I am in danger of spiritual death.” The Church supplies [Ed: for such an eventuality, IF IT OCCURS], for the Church places ipso facto (by the fact itself) this Catholic under the jurisdiction of a priest. END OF QUOTE

        There is no suggestion in the Bishop’s words that EVERY diocesan priest will be offering invalid confessions, that ALL the faithful will find themselves in that unhappy position; thus, the premise of the advocacy of supplied jurisdiction in the above quote (and in the SSPX position) is that IF IF IF IF any soul is concerned about the validity of their confessions, they may confess to a Society priest. It is NOT mandatory. If, conversely, there are some priests who are of certain doctrine (in this case, who pronounce the correct words of absolution, form, in the Sacrament of Penance) then there is no problem.

        Please, with respect, stop this superior attitude, as if those who confess to non-Society priests are somehow “wimps” or “flaky” or “modernists” or whatever, for holding the Society position that we may, with ease of conscience, confess to Society priests because they have supplied jurisdiction but we may also, equally conscientiously, confess to the local diocesan priests or religious, if we are confident in the validity of their confessions. We are not insisting that everyone confess to their local priests as you appear to imply. Athanasius is often to be seen in the confession queue in our SSPX chapel, and word has it that he has been caught once too often with his fingers in the cookie jar – as you lot would say over the Pond: we’d say “biscuit tin” but, I admit, it doesn’t have quite the same ring to it!

        Now, Athanasius has given you a very good suggestion – email Bishop Fellay and ask him if it is permitted for us to confess to non-Society priests, bearing in mind that we are informed enough to hear any spiritual advice with discretion (not that there’s much being doled out, to the best of my knowledge. They probably think I’m a lost cause, cos I don’t get any spiritual advice offered, and – let’s face it – I sure could use some 😀

        Now, let’s agree that we have probably crossed wires somewhere along the line above, and that we’re all, really, on the same side. Otherwise, I’m going to have to start telling jokes again, and posting cartoons and we really do NOT want that, do we? 😯

        January 3, 2016 at 11:01 pm
      • Athanasius


        “Athanasius is often to be seen in the confession queue in our SSPX chapel, and word has it that he has been caught once too often with his fingers in the cookie jar…”

        Do you have that confessional bugged?

        Truth be told, I’ve had the cookie jar lid slammed shut on my fingers quite a lot!!

        January 3, 2016 at 11:56 pm
      • maryannhosier

        No Editor our wires are not crossed. You guys have some unfortunate liberal ideas. I said again and again you have the choice to go to an NO priest. That’s not the question. Should one is the question. And whether or not the SSPX has recommended that one not go.
        I find you guys to be what the resistance complains about. I think they’re awful but they have picked up on some hybrid tendencies, Probably because they’re hyper critical and are looking for it. You have your ideas and I have mine, I just think Catholic truth blog does not have good arguments for their liberal ideas. To me those ideas are weak. Even a silly thing like the right to wear pants seems like poking Tradionalists with a stick and liberal. So I part ways and wish you good success in the battles you fight that are holy. The battles I disagree with, may you lose them.
        I like Athanasius he’s a big scruple. God Bless Athanasius (God Help Petrus)

        January 4, 2016 at 2:22 am
      • Petrus

        Goodbye (again!), 3 little shepherds. God bless.

        Sent from my Samsung device

        January 4, 2016 at 10:30 am
      • editor


        You’ve got form on this, so I was waiting for the Grand Goodbye. I have lost count of the times I’ve decided to wipe the dust from my feet on various blogs and leave them to it, but I’ve never once announced the fact as if anyone would give a toss. Now this is your second “farewell” and I thank you for it, because we’re going round and round in circles, and it’s getting tedious hunting for the last “reply” button.

        Your insulting remarks to our bloggers show the spirit under which you are operating. It’s certainly not the Catholic spirit of charity, which, while it may require hard words, never requires personal nastiness.

        You appear – ironically – to fail to understand the contradiction in your own words. You argue that we are saying we don’t need “supplied jurisdiction” for ourselves but justify it for others. Of COURSE! It’s not MEANT for everyone – it is “supplied” where required.

        Precisely the point you are missing is that “supplied jurisdiction” (as the quotes you have posted confirm) is there IN CASE IT IS REQUIRED. If I found that the priests hearing my confession were failing to absolve using the correct form, I would then be free to attend the Society confessions. A step further and if I were unable – even if only for practical reasons – to get to Confession for a number of weeks and found I could get into the Society confessional after all, I would be morally and theologically free to do so, thanks to supplied jurisdiction.

        Supplied jurisdiction doesn’t make SSPX confessions compulsory and it is downright ridiculous to claim that we are liberals because we go to confession to other priests. You have fallen into the heresy that “outside the SSPX there is no salvation” (no absolution, no valid consecration – the lot. Dearie me!)

        So, since we’re all tired of saying the same thing over and over again and since you don’t want to play any more because we’re not letting you have your own way, we accept your farewell (again) with this reminder: at no time in the history of the Church were Catholics required to accept the private opinions, not just of popes but of priests, nuns and teachers (and even bloggers) as well. The opinions of those who don’t like women wearing trousers, which you have chosen to take as de fide, is yet another example of your pick ‘n mix Catholicism. St Augustine preached that the Catholic spirit is to accept “all that the Church allows” – if individuals take up extreme views on women’s dress or supplied jurisdiction which they interpret as NOT supplied but parallel jurisdiction (which Archbishop Lefebvre explicitly ruled out) then that’s their problem.

        We, the regulars on this blog, and even the semi-regulars, remain Catholics, whole and entire, not saying one minute “but there are limits on a pope’s authority, we don’t have to accept his personal views or statement” then adding “however, in the case of the SSPX we take every priest’s personal opinion as infallibly true and binding.”

        Doesn’t make sense.

        Finally, you should be glad that there are priests outside the Society who can absolve, and it is very sad that you appear to denounce every priest outside the Society. Will make it very hard indeed to restore the Faith, if every priest outside the Society is not really a priest at all, which is the logical conclusion of your argument.

        Anyway, thanks for stopping by, to say “goodbye” so to speak. Oops, I’m a poet and I didn’t know it!

        January 4, 2016 at 10:44 am
      • editor


        At the time of reading your quite shocking comments about novus ordo priests, I emailed the USA district with a link to this thread, directing them to your comments. I complimented them on their (I thought) innovative Against Sound Bites page, and asked if they would post the answer to the query about confessing to novus ordo priests. Here is the reply – please note that you have misread Fr Scott, big time:

        Dear [Editor]

        Good to hear from you and pardon my great delay in responding!

        The “Against the Sounds Bite” is actually part of our archived website, not the new one — but thank you for the compliment just the same!

        Concerning confession to priests in the Novus Ordo, the person in question obviously does not know that Fr. Peter Scott himself gave direct permission for faithful who attended our chapels to confess to certain mainstream priests who were known for their orthodoxy in confessional matters. I can specifically cite two examples, one here in Kansas City, MO (a Redemptorist who is still alive) and another in Chicago, IL (a now-deceased Franciscan); there were other priests as well.

        Obviously, for the reasons cited by Fr. Scott (cf. our archived site: the traditional faithful should in general avoid confessing to a priest of the Novus Ordo. However, such a prohibition is not absolute as your blogger would imply. Nonetheless, we would stress that such a matter needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, and thus it is recommended that an SSPX priest be consulted beforehand.

        Lastly, as this issue is affecting a blog in Scotland, I would suggest that you obtain a clarifying statement from the District Office for the United Kingdom (and also Scotland) on this matter, as they would be the appropriate local SSPX authorities to comment on it for the benefit of your blog.

        I hope that this helps to clarify the matter and God bless. END.

        I did contact the UK District Superior as suggested and he replied as follows:

        I agree with Fr. Scott. There are many good priests out there in the conciliar Church. They have the faith, but we differ in our prudential decision to stand up to the revolutionaries.

        I hope that clarifies the matter. Since this thread is now overdue for closure, and lest this information be lost, I’m going to post it again at the end of the thread.

        February 6, 2016 at 9:48 pm
      • Therese

        Game, set and match, Editor.

        February 6, 2016 at 9:58 pm
      • Athanasius


        This will be a test of humility for 3Littleshepherds. We’ve all got something or other wrong in the past and had to retract. I hope 3Littleshepherds has that honesty.

        February 6, 2016 at 11:31 pm
  • editor

    This report and video clip came to me in an email just now – speaks for itself (at least the priest has been rebuked and has apologised for his nonsense.)


    December 29, 2015 at 11:28 pm
  • editor

    Folks, one and all,

    I now realise that I didn’t make it clear in my blue comment, but the people to whom I referred in the introduction, who surprised me recently, are people who attend the TLM most of the time. I was astonished to find the mentality among some of them, that “well, if you can’t get to a TLM, it’s OK to attend the NO.” It is no exaggeration to say that I was flabbergasted. My gaster was truly flabbered. Believe me.

    I’m aware of Frankier’s situation, and, notwithstanding the excellent and thoughtful responses to those bloggers who are currently still regulars at a NO, albeit unwillingly, allow me to repeat that my main concern in launching this thread, was to reflect on the fact that, incredibly, in my view, even some who regularly attend the traditional Latin Mass would think nothing of attending a NO if they found themselves somewhere, e.g. on holiday, where they could not readily attend the TLM.

    How on earth to explain that?

    December 29, 2015 at 11:44 pm
    • Athanasius


      That just goes to show that almost all Catholics, if not all, are affected to some degree by the liberalism that has saturated the Church and society these past fifty years.

      On the defensive side of Traditional Catholics, I have been attending SSPX Masses for nearly thirty years and have never heard anyone say that they attend the NO Mass for any reason at any time. Maybe you’ve been speaking to recent additions to Tradition who are still not clear in their mind as to the real dangers of the NO.

      December 30, 2015 at 12:23 am
    • RCA Victor


      Mea culpa, etc.: I used to be one of those who vacillated between the NO and the TLM, after my first introduction to the TLM. It took me about 4 years to get really steamed up about the NO, to the point where I wanted to jump up on my pew and start shouting “This is an offense to God!” or some such. The only NO I’ve been to since I made this decision, around 2007, was my uncle’s funeral in 2012 – which was, as you can imagine, most disheartening, to say the least.

      Also, in my limited experience, if you label the NO accurately to an NO-goer, i.e. you describe it as an abomination, their reaction ranges from shock to horror. Maybe I should come up with a kinder, gentler word, so as not to flabber anyone’s gaster so abruptly.

      December 30, 2015 at 12:45 am
      • Athanasius

        RCA Victor,

        I agree that “abomination” is too strong a word for the NO Mass. The best way to describe it is “dangerous innovation”. Or, if you prefer, borrow from Cardinal Ratzinger and call it “a banal on-the-spot fabrication”. That’s pretty powerful.

        December 30, 2015 at 1:02 am
    • catholicconvert1

      Regarding your holiday comment, I think France, Germany and Italy (and London) have good SSPX availability especially La France.

      December 30, 2015 at 4:19 pm
  • morgana

    i hope that this is in keeping with the discussion my firm belief is if you are attending the traditional mass you should absolutely not be going to the new mass.i agree with rca victor that this also includes the sacraments.My own thoughts are until the church has been restored to its original state the new mass is to be avoided at all cost.

    December 30, 2015 at 12:03 am
  • sixupman

    It has recently been reported that +Williamson has opined [on his web-site presumably] that not all NOMs are anathema! Some years ago you would have all fell upon his words with relish.

    December 30, 2015 at 10:34 am
    • RCA Victor


      Perhaps you are referring to a video widely circulated a few months ago (widely in traditionalist circles, anyway) which featured Bp. Williamson answering, or attempting to answer, a question from a woman in the audience, presumably after one of his talks. The woman asked whether she should go to an NOM; the BIshop’s reply came off as a series of waffling and contradictory statements. Unfortunately, the video in question was not the original one: it had been analyzed and commented upon by NovusOrdoWatch, a sardonic group of sedevacantists if there ever was one. Even more sardonic and arrogant, I might add, than “Resistance” types.

      However, to attempt to sum up the gist of His Excellency’s comments, his advice was it was OK but dangerous to attend a NOM under certain circumstances.

      December 30, 2015 at 3:53 pm
  • Athanasius


    I never, ever fell upon Bishop Williamson’s words with relish. In His Excelleny’s case every word was scrutinised. However, not everything Bishop Williamson says is wrong. What I think you may be referring to is his qualification that some NOM’s are invalid due to liturgical abuses while others are valid if celebrated correctly with the proper matter, form and intention.

    This was and remains the position of the SSPX on the NOM, so in that respect Bishop Williamson is saying nothing contrary. It’s also worth noting that he does not go on to say that it is therefore ok for Catholics to attend valid NOM’s without scruple. No, again he takes the SSPX position that even though valid, these Masses represent a danger to Catholic souls, so imbued are they with Protestant theology and innovation. So, as the Americans are wont to say: ‘Nothing to see here’!

    December 30, 2015 at 11:40 am
    • editor

      I think Sixupman may be referring to a fairly recent bulletin from Bishop Williamson, one of his “Eleison Comments”, in which he writes about alleged Eucharistic miracles at Novus Ordo Masses, e.g. the one in Argentina, during the time when the Pope was Archbishop there. He uses such miracles as evidence that God has not abandoned his people, including those of good will attending the new Mass. All that such miracles prove, however, is – as you say – that the Society has never condemned the NO as “invalid” per se, but a danger to souls due to the Protestantising effect.

      Click here to see one which MAY be invalid, however. A reader sent me this link to Midnight Mass in an English cathedral, which, I’m sorry to say, I’ve still not had time to view. He sent it with a statement to the effect that the celebrant did not “sacrifice”. I will view later (it’s got a limited online shelf life as you will see) and will be interested in bloggers’ thoughts on the matter.

      December 30, 2015 at 11:51 am
  • Athanasius


    I watched the video you linked, admittedly skipping through some of it up to the consecration, and I have to say that I have no idea what the person who sent this to you is referring to. The Bishop said the words of consecration correctly, One slightly worrying thing was the size of the host he used to consecrate, it was the size of a small plate, which, if memory serves, is forbidden by the rubrics. Other than that, I didn’t observe anything that would invalidate that Mass as a sacrifice.

    December 30, 2015 at 12:21 pm
    • Petrus

      I agree. I’ve just watched the video and thought it was pretty reverent for a New Mass. I, too, have no idea what the person who sent it to you is on about.

      December 30, 2015 at 2:02 pm
      • editor

        I’ve now emailed him Athanasius’s comment and asked what it was, precisely, that made him think the celebrant had not “sacrificed”. Will let you know his reply.

        December 30, 2015 at 11:01 pm
  • waterside4

    Ahem, ahem, if I may be allowed to issue a little squeak amongst the storm of condemnation, and being consigned to Hades, for not being fortunate enough to have access to the Latin Mass, to make a couple of points.

    First of all I am a firm believer in Christian charity and forgiveness.

    I never realilised that the stick which I used to poke the hornets nest of righteousness on this website, would engender such a lack of understanding of my, and far more importantly to me, my beautiful ex fiance and convert, Mrs Waterside’s, situation.

    First of all a mea culpa for not describing our wonderful Parish Priests attributes.

    When I said he delivers excellent interpretations of the relevant gospel and Sunday readings “off the cuff” I meant he has no need for a script and gets to the gist of the message in a consice and elucid manner intrerpriting the Holy Bible in an understandable way. If some uncharitable souls here think that my inadequate description leads them to invision our PP “strutting down the isle” I most humbly apologise on his behalf.

    He is certainly not a show man. He brings the Lectionary down to the front row and treats it with the reverence to which it is due, in order to be better heard by the aged congregants lack of hearing. If, as some on here, would prefer a Pastor to stand at the pulpit and read a pre prepared sermon in an unintelligible way, so be it. I could go on – but is there any point?

    Obviously I am condemned and found guilty already for the grave crime of trying to come to a reconciliation with my maker. I do genuinely wish I could bask in the (self righteous?) light of the good people here who have the good fortune to have the Latin Mass on their doorstep.

    Back in the late 50’s and early 60’s as a Merchant Navy officer, I sought out Sunday Mass on all the (then) five continents. Most of the time it was in a language with which I was not familiar. That did not prevent me from celebrating the Sacrifice just as I was not put off by my lack of proficiency in the Latin of my youth.
    Obviously I do not belong on this wonderful Old Catholic blog.

    I thank you all for your indulgence, and will continue to look in occasionally and remember you all in my prayers.

    God bless.

    December 30, 2015 at 3:20 pm
    • Athanasius


      Your original comment was: “Our Parish Priest gives the most exhilarating homilies, off the cuff, marching down the isle lasting 10 to 20 minutes.” You cannot blame us for interpreting this as you yourself described.

      As for the “self righteousness” you accuse us of on this blog, it was actually righteous indignation that a man of your years, a man who grew up in the old Church, could state without remorse that he was an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.

      Perhaps you’re leaving us because you don’t like what you hear, Waterside4? It’s a common response from people who like the new ways, we’re used to it.

      Anyway, to get back to the Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion thing, here’s what Westminsterfly posted above for your instruction. If you’re truly a faithful Catholic, as you claim, then you will see the error of your ways, at least on this very important point.

      “I found the 1997 Vatican document which states about Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist – it is here:-

      The relevant passage is:- “Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at eucharistic celebrations ONLY (emphasis mine) when there are no ordained ministers present or when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion. They may also exercise this function at eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and which would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion”. The document ends by saying:- “The Supreme Pontiff, in Audience of the 13th of August 1997 approved ‘in forma specifica’ this present Instruction and ordered its promulgation” and it was co-signed by heads of many other dicasteries.

      If one were attending Mass then obviously there would be an ordained minister present, so this effectively removes the need for an extraordinary minister at all Masses. I cannot think of one example in a parish setting where there would be so many people present, that the distribution of Holy Communion would be ‘excessively prolonged’. When I used to attend the Novus Ordo in my parish, it was my experience that the priest used two extraordinary ministers at each Mass – even for weekday Masses which were not well attended. Totally unnecessary and wrong.”

      December 30, 2015 at 3:43 pm
    • RCA Victor


      Let me put it this way: if I lived anywhere in your neck of the woods, I would drive you to a TLM myself, even if it took us all day to get there and back.

      December 30, 2015 at 3:58 pm
    • catholicconvert1


      Nobody has disrespected your or consigned you to Hell. You described the Priest’s homilies as ‘off the cuff’. Where I come from that means ‘made it up as he has gone along’. If you cannot take constructive criticism, vis-à-vis you being an Extraordinary Minister then that is your problem. EMHC are not allowed. Laypeople handling Holy Communion is a grave sin. End of. Our Parish had a Mill Hill Missionary visit with his red box, and he definitely was a peacock. He literally strutted up and down the aisle and he had one of those annoying Ewan McGregor style Scottish accents- no offence. Gimme a good Billy Connolly Glaswegian accent any day!! The Priest’s place is in the Pulpit and the Altar. Aren’t I old fashioned for a 21 year old? I am not self-righteous at all. I am trying to help you. If you, as a believer in Christian charity, cannot accept help or correction, then that’s your problem.

      December 30, 2015 at 4:32 pm
    • editor


      Now that’s a very naughty post from you. Very naughty indeed. You do exactly what you are wrongly accusing the rest of us of doing and it ain’t good enough.

      We are not self-righteous, nor are we condemnatory of any individual but we make no apology for correcting the liturgical abuses so commonplace in modern Masses and among them we must count priests who preach and walk around as they do so (don’t gimme hard of hearing – I’m hard of hearing and there’s nothing worse than trying to hear someone when they are marching all over the place.)

      And the illicit use of EMHC is something we have always and always will condemn. In the very first document on the subject, 1997 Instruction, article 8 stated clearly that even a packed church is no excuse for their use. But the Vatican, as usual, refused to enforce its own rules and now it’s regarded as a right, a legitimate “ministry” for lay people to handle and distribute the Blessed Sacrament. Honestly, Waterside, you must surely know somewhere deep in your soul, that this is not right – at your age. I mean, if I, at 29 😉 know that it’s not right, surely your good self, at 74, must have had a twinge or two about it.

      Now, I’m not accepting your resignation. You will stick around here, else I’ll take you to court for breach of contract.

      Just remember, we are not self-righteous nor condemnatory – that would suggest pride, and everyone who knows me knows that I am about as humble as it gets. Papa Francis, eat your heart out!

      December 30, 2015 at 11:20 pm
  • Maria


    Take my advice, go back to Mass on a Sunday in your locality. It is the right thing to do. The Catholic Mass (NO) is a valid Mass, the priests are validly ordained and at the Catholic Mass we have the Eucharist, and as Catholics we believe in the real presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. By not going to Mass, you are depriving yourself of many graces, blessings, and healings for you, your family and your ancestors. As Catholics it is an obligation to attend weekly Mass every Sunday.

    I looked up two sources to back up my advice to you. The first is the Compendium Catechism of the Catholic Church. It states that Jesus Christ in the Eucharist “is present in a true, real and substantial way, with his Body and his Blood, with his Soul and his Divinity.” (CCC, pg 109, par 1376-1377). So by not attending weekly Sunday Mass, you are depriving yourself of Jesus Christ.

    It is also an obligation as Catholics to attend ‘weekly Sunday’ Mass. The Compendium Catechism of the Catholic Church states that ‘the Church obliges the faithful to participate at Holy Mass every Sunday and on holy days of obligation.” (CCC, pg 110, par 1389-1417).

    Also, the Compendum Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “Christians keep Sunday and other days of obligation holy by participating in the Eucharist of the Lord.” (CCC, pg 163, par 2177-2185).

    A book called ‘The Lamb’s Supper – The Mass as Heaven on Earth’ by Scott Hahn outlines the benefits of the Mass in great detail. The author states that to go to Mass is “to renew our Covenant with God” and “to go to Mass is to receive the fulness of grace.” (pg 155, Lamb’s Supper by Scott Hahn). He also states that ‘in the Mass, God has given us His very life.” (pg 156 Lamb’s Supper by Scott Hahn)

    Whether it’s a Latin Mass or Novus Order Mass, both are valid Masses. So get going back to Mass this Sunday in your locality. Praying the rosary or reading the Bible is not the same as going to Mass and receiving the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. By not going to weekly Sunday Mass it is also giving bad example to the younger generation. So get going back to Mass every Sunday.

    December 30, 2015 at 4:57 pm
    • editor


      A couple of things. Firstly, the Catholics in Japan had to live for 200 years without the Mass as they had no priests. They made sure they knew their catechism, and prayed, read etc. so that when the priests returned, they were ready and waiting, strong in the Faith. Important as are the Sacraments, Christ is not bound by His Sacraments.

      Secondly, there is sufficient controversy surrounding the new Mass, laid out by the priest very concisely in the video as well as by the bloggers here, to AT LEAST cast doubt on the duty of any Catholic to attend it, even on Sundays. Read this article for some more detail, explaining very clearly indeed, why the novus ordo cannot be forced on the conscience of any Catholic. Nobody is obliged to attend the NO.

      In fact, such is the controversy surrounding it, that a Bishop in Latin America sent two dubia (doubts) to the Vatican on behalf of a lay member of his diocese, asking whether or not the new Mass is licit. Below is a comment I posted on a previous thread on the topic which refers to the Vatican response to the Bishop’s questions:


      The new Mass is “licit” only in a very limited way. I have published, more than once, the Vatican’s own response to two dubia (doubts) submitted by a bishop in South America on behalf of a layman there, asking this very question about legitimacy.

      He asked two questions:

      (1) is the new Mass “legitimate” in the sense that it is permitted by the Church or

      (2) is it “legitimate” because it is neither doctrinally unorthodox or otherwise displeasing to God.

      Here is the (incredible) response of the Vatican:

      Pontificia Commissio Ecclesia Dei
      Prot. 156/2009
      Vatican City, 23 May 2012

      Your Excellency,

      This Pontifical Commission has received, via your Excellency’s good offices, a copy of a correspondence from [name blacked out] placing before the Commission two dubia as to the interpretation of article 19 of this Commission’s Instruction Universae Ecclesiae.

      The first [dubium] asked whether legitimas in UE, article 19, is to be understood as meaning:

      (a) Duly promulgated by appropriate procedures of ecclesiastical law (ius ecclesiasticum); or

      (b) In accord with both ecclesiastical law and divine law (ius divinum), that is, neither doctrinally unorthodox nor otherwise displeasing to God.

      This Pontifical Commission would limit itself to saying that legitimas is to be understood in the sense of 1(a).

      The second [dubium] is responded to by this answer.

      With the hope that Your Excellency will communicate the contents of this letter to the individual concerned, this Pontifical Commission takes this opportunity to renew its sentiments of esteem.

      Sincerely yours in Christ
      Mons. Guido Pozzo
      Secretary END.

      In other words, the new Mass is “licit” only because the Church permits it. Not because it is pleasing to God, so it stands to reason that there can be no obligation on Catholics to attend any Mass that even the Vatican will not affirm as wholly doctrinally orthodox and pleasing to God.

      If your local butcher refused to affirm that the meat you are about to purchase is wholly nourishing and free from poison, would you go ahead and buy it anyway?

      December 30, 2015 at 10:26 pm
      • RCA Victor


        To add my not-very-well-informed personal opinion to your post, I cannot fathom how a liturgy specifically designed to avoid giving offense to heretics (i.e. Protestants) could possibly be either pleasing to God, or to bestow graces on the faithful. Conversely, I can easily fathom that He is deeply DIS-pleased with it, hence the Divine Punishment of bad shepherds we have been experiencing lo these 50 years. Wasn’t it Bl. John Eudes who stated that God’s wrath takes the form of corrupt clergy?

        Also, I believe Louie Verrecchio wrote a column not too long ago in which he posited that one should avoid the NOM because it was, as the SSPX has been pointing out since its “promulgation,” poisonous to the Faith – and Holy Mother Church would never poison her children.

        December 31, 2015 at 12:57 am
    • Athanasius


      I don’t disagree with you in cases where people genuinely cannot get to a Traditional Mass, but you omitted to mention to Waterside the very important admonition that if he does go a New Mass, he must resist all the dangerous Protestant innovations integral to it.

      While I do not doubt your sincerity, trying to pass over the dangers of the New Mass as if they don’t exist, equating that “banal on-the-spot fabrication,” as Cardinal Ratzinger once called it, with the ancient Latin liturgy that sanctified the saints and martyrs, is disingenuous. The New Mass, while it can be validly celebrated, is certainly not as fruitful in grace as the ancient Mass of the Church. In fact it tends to weaken faith in souls after a while, as today’s empty seminaries, religious houses and many parish churches testifies. I know about these things because I was raised with the New Mass and witnessed the devastation first hand.

      So, advise Waterside to do the right thing by all means, but do not attempt to mislead him into thinking the New Mass is perfectly good and healthy. It’s not!

      December 30, 2015 at 10:28 pm
    • Athanasius


      I forgot to mention that you should be careful about reccommending Scott Hahn. Mr. Hahn is a great admirer and promoter of the works of the Dominican theologian, Yves Congar, whose writings were placed on the Index of forbidden works during the reign of Pope Pius XII. He was also forbidden to teach. His name was also on the Holy Office list of “those suspected of heresy”.

      Yves Condar was a prominent ecumenist and defender of France’ Worker Priest movement among other deviations, such as his agitation for Papal Collegiality, a condemned heresy. So you have to be careful.

      December 30, 2015 at 10:55 pm
  • RCA Victor

    Petrus and CatholicConvert1, (and anyone else)

    I’d be interested in your assessment of this article,a comparison of the forms of absolution pre- and post-VII:

    December 30, 2015 at 8:55 pm
    • Petrus

      That is a sedevacantist site, so I automatically dismiss anything that’s published on it. Sorry.

      Sent from my Samsung device

      December 30, 2015 at 9:11 pm
      • editor


        Are you sure about that? I’ve sometimes used material from TIA and didn’t see it as sedevacantist. Just now, after reading your comment, I tried to find a statement on their site to clarify but nothing came to hand. I clicked on their Hot Topics section and there they have a list of articles, referring to the recent popes as “pope”. What makes you think they are sedevacantist?

        For the record, I’d like to remind everyone that we have a clear statement in our About Us (T & C) section linked top of the blog, that any links to or recommendations of sede websites/literature etc will be removed by the administrator, who is something of an officious mademoiselle! So, be warned!

        December 30, 2015 at 10:14 pm
      • Petrus


        I was sure this was a sedevacantist site but now I’m not so sure. I will investigate further.

        Sent from my Samsung device

        December 30, 2015 at 10:16 pm
      • Petrus

        Sorry, I’m wrong. It’s not a sedevacantist site.

        Sent from my Samsung device

        December 30, 2015 at 10:20 pm
      • editor

        New Year Bonus cancelled, Petrus. We can’t have this level of slacking… 😀

        December 30, 2015 at 10:34 pm
      • RCA Victor

        In that case, Petrus, I would still be interested in your assessment of the article I posted – thanks.

        December 31, 2015 at 12:23 am
  • RCA Victor

    Thanks Petrus, I didn’t know that.

    December 30, 2015 at 9:12 pm
  • Christina

    Dear Waterside4, I for one, have valued your contributions to this blog, and will miss you if you go. Please reconsider that. One thing puzzles me. If you heard Mass on the five continents in the late 50s and early 60s it would have been the same Mass everywhere, namely the traditional rite. The first tinkering with the Mass happened in the USA in November 1964, but the full fabricated Bugnini NO wasn’t promulgated until 1969.

    I am aware that in the liturgical desert of much of Scotland the counsels of this blog must often cause distress to many deprived souls. I have myself occasionally attended an NO Mass, even in more fertile England, when a traditional Mass has been too far away to reach. My reasoning is that the first Commandment of the Church binds me to hear Mass on Sundays and holidays of obligation. The Mass that the Church currently provides for most of her unfortunate children is a lamentable, but non-the-less valid rite if celebrated strictly in accordance with the GIRM. Because of the indefectability of the Church, she cannot promulgate an invalid rite, and it is not for me to assume that a hitherto unknown Mass will be sufficiently abusive as to be invalid. If I do know that any priest does so ignore the General Instruction that his Masses may be presumed to be invalid, then, of course, I would not go near them. Thanks to my age, religious education, and wide reading (and this blog, of course), I think I can say without presumption that my faith is not in danger at an NO Mass. I am physically present, but ignore everybody round me and listen to nothing. I read my 1962 Missal, concentrating only on what Christ is accomplishing in this presumably valid Mass, and I offer up the misery I inevitably suffer in union with His. Well that is what I try to do anyway. I am fortunate in that I have several traditional Masses to choose from in my part of the world, but if I lived too far away from one, I would move house – again I am fortunate in that I could do that if necessary, and I know that not everyone could. Incidentally, I do know of several people who have done just that.

    So there, Waterside4, I will no doubt draw some fire away from you, so please do stay! But now you’ve been provided with those links, do repent of your Eucharistic Monsterhood as well!! 😕

    December 30, 2015 at 11:29 pm
    • Margaret Mary


      I am genuinely worried about what to say to the young people in my family, especially the teens, who know a bit about the Mass crisis but think it’s OK to attend the new Mass because it’s “allowed” and it’s not always easy to get to the Latin Mass.

      They’re not as educated as you, obviously, and they are very easily influenced, peer pressure is a real problem, so should I let them continue to attend the new Mass and just hope for the best? I suspect they find the Latin Mass dull after attending the busy and noisy new Mass. They like the music etc in the new Mass, so if they keep attending it, I worry that they will not stay with the faith, but the Latin Mass is not available every Sunday within reasonable travelling distance. It can be a real worry

      December 30, 2015 at 11:41 pm
      • RCA Victor

        Margaret Mary,

        I wonder if one way to address this problem with your family is indirectly, via encouraging the development of the inner life – that is, mental prayer. I may be naive in thinking this, but I think the closer one draws to Our Lord in prayer, the less likely one will be to tolerate the NOM, and conversely, to be drawn to the TLM.

        December 31, 2015 at 12:21 am
      • editor


        I fully understand your dilemma; even though I’m not married with children, I sometimes discuss this subject with friends who are parents experiencing the dilemma. One, in particular took a long time to come to the point herself that she should not attend the NO, and now has concerns that her children, whom she has laudably brought up in the Mass-going habit and who are all either students at university or graduates, still refuse to miss Mass if they cannot get to a TLM (which, she says, they do prefer.)

        Imagine my surprise, then, when recently a traditional priest friend of mine wrote the following to me, when I was discussing the above matter by email, in the context of what to do about young Catholics like the above, in order to help them, of course, but also to allay the fears of their parents. He wrote this to me:

        Looking back over old correspondence it occurs to me to remind you of what you wrote to me in 2004:

        [Dear Father]

        “I know that the position of the SSPX (which I greatly admire) is that if there is no traditional Mass available, it is better not to attend the new Mass. Although I detest attending the new Mass, it has been something of a shock to me to discover this position because, notwithstanding all the political and very underhand work that went on at the Council to concoct the new Mass, and notwithstanding the difference between true and false obedience, I have always taken it as a valid Mass which we had to attend under pain of mortal sin. […] One of my main concerns is that of habit. For young people in particular, the cultivation of the habit of regularly attending Mass is crucial to their formation. Obviously, I would advocate attendance at the Traditional Mass where at all possible but I could not imagine myself ever recommending that anyone not attend Mass, despite, as I say, all of its dreadful shortcomings.”

        The priest then continued: “I too thought like that once, and came gradually (and by the grace of God) to understand the supernatural blessings of not compromising. You have reached that point as well. Now we shall pray that [the other(s)] arrive at the same point, and I shall speak to [them] [about it.]

        Now, the above words of mine, written in 2004, reminded me of something I’ve often said: it wasn’t until 2006, when I returned to Scotland, that I was in a position of being able to attend the TLM every Sunday. Before that, due to my home location and work circumstances, I could only attend the TLM occasionally. So, Father’s reminding me of my actual words, written in 2004, underlined what I have said to people when encouraging them to attend the TLM, that it’s only when we attend regularly, every Sunday, for a reasonable length of time (I suggest 6 weeks, at least) that we reach a point where we just cannot, in conscience, continue to attend the NO. That has been my own experience, and others have said that was their experience as well.

        Anyway, I share the above to show that it is, truly, only by the grace of God that we are able to comprehend what Father describes as “the grace of not compromising”.

        So, I suggest, MM, that you take a more relaxed approach with the young people in your care, although I would offer them some of the SSPX reading material (and the above series of excellent short videos) to help take them forward in their understanding until they reach the point of recognising the need to not compromise. Also, if you can ask an SSPX priest to speak with them on the subject, that would undoubtedly help, and is preferable to risking bad feeling and even upset in the family.

        December 31, 2015 at 12:08 pm
    • RCA Victor


      You’re a hardier soul than I am! My reaction to the NOM eventually became so visceral that I couldn’t even do what you do (suffer through it by ignoring everyone and listening to nothing). Must be my Italian heritage….but I have an admittedly excessively probing (perhaps) question to ask of you, and I’m not trying to be impertinent: if you are ignoring everyone around you and listening to nothing at an NOM, then how do you know whether the priest is celebrating according to the GIRM? Or am I taking your comment too literally?

      And a less probing question: when you do attend an NOM, do you have problems receiving kneeling and on the tongue? (“Problems” = resistance from the priest, or disapproving looks, etc.) I recall numerous complaints to that effect in the earlier years of this blog.

      December 31, 2015 at 12:44 am
      • Christina

        RCA Victor, that question made me think! About not listening and so how do I know, etc. I’d hate anyone to think I would normally go to anything other than the true Mass. As I said, I’m very well blessed at home. If I go away for perhaps a week or two then I don’t worry about missing. It was always taught that it was no sin to miss if one was on holiday and the nearest Catholic church was more than five miles away. That was reckoned as walking distance, but oddly, as Evelyn Waugh observed, it was not increased later for those who had a car. I do know a bit about the NO situation in some of the places I go to, and if I can be sure of a valid NO – usually from friends – that is when I go and blank out the rite, or try my best to. I NEVER go to Holy Communion at an NO Mass no matter what. I cannot bear to see Our Lord treated as He is almost everywhere now. Like you, this affects me viscerally, and I do often leave before the distribution of Communion, as the essential parts of the Mass have been completed. If I find myself in an abusive Mass, such as one I went to in Galloway, then the fact does get through to me in spite of the ‘withdrawedness’ and I leave at once. My frequent Galloway trips have become problematic now and I don’t think I could get to Glasgow or Edinburgh while there. I hope that makes my position clear about my quite personal conscientious problem. I am not comfortable when I consider that so many people have no access to the true Mass, and advising them not to go at all cuts them off from a source of grace which God, in His goodness, provides through what He accomplishes in a valid if deeply compromised rite. I have discussed this matter in Confession (SSPX) and although the SSPX position has been reiterated, I have not been put under any pressure to conform.

        Margaret Mary, you are too kind! Editor’s reply and her letter hit every possible nail on the head. The last paragraph, especially, gives the perfect answer to your question. Perhaps you could manage to get your young folk, for instance, to watch a u-tube clown Mass followed by a section of a Solemn Mass with a really good choir and get them to discuss the differences a little. Also, some of the books on the Mass written before the NO days are simple enough. Fulton Sheen’s ‘This is the Mass’ is one example, and I have a copy you can borrow if it’s no longer available. The question inevitably should arise ‘If this is the Mass, what is it we’re going to on Sundays these days?’

        December 31, 2015 at 11:20 pm
      • RCA Victor


        Many thanks for your reply – see also my question at the bottom about “grace.” Your post reminded me of the last NO I attended, in 2013, a “Rite of Christian Burial” for a dear friend who actually introduced me to the TLM in 2002, but for some reason could not make himself leave his home parish (the liturgical celebration of which drove him nuts). I left even earlier than you, before the Consecration, as I couldn’t take it. I apologized to the soul of my friend and hurried out as fast as I could, trying not to be too disruptive. It was my last liturgical contact with that horrifying, disordered world – though lately I have been given permission to make visits in the Chapel of our seminary, which is two minutes from my house. They actually have the Tabernacle upon a traditional altar (of course, there is a marble NO “table” in front of it), and the Chapel itself is classically beautiful. A real Catholic work of art! I’ve found a time of day when no one is around – the seminary itself appears to be not very full, if you catch my drift – so I have the Chapel, and Our Lord, all to myself.

        January 3, 2016 at 11:28 pm
  • Athanasius

    Margaret Mary

    You can only advise the young people in your family, you cannot constrain them to attend the Tradtitional Mass. The other thing we cannot and must not do is try to force people against their conscience to stop attending the New Mass. Again, we can only advise that they seek out a Traditional Mass if possible, or alternatively, if they insist on the New Mass, advise that they at least shun the Protestant innovations that are inherent to it, such as Communion in the hand. I hope this helps alleviate your worry.

    December 30, 2015 at 11:49 pm
  • RCA Victor


    This afternoon I attempted to post a question about the sad history of England, three times: twice on the General Discussion, and once here. All three times, it disappeared into Scottish cyberspace. Did it go into moderation? Was it attacked by haggis from outer space? Did you suspect I was one of Pope Francis’ Missionaries of Mercy?

    December 31, 2015 at 12:25 am
    • editor

      RCA Victor

      Your three posts went into the SPAM folder – I have no idea why. I have now realised one, but be assured, there is no apparent reason for them to go into SPAM. I do keep an eye on the SPAM folder so worry not if something disappears. I will see it if it has gone into SPAM and since your name is not on the “banned” list, it wouldn’t disappear completely. I will then release it asap. It just means an annoying delay in being posted, but can’t be helped.

      For the record, I didn’t at all suspect you of operating as one of Pope Francis’ Missionaries of Mercy! Still, now that you mention it…

      December 31, 2015 at 11:42 am
      • RCA Victor

        Thank you Editor! Now may I complain that no one has answered my question?

        January 3, 2016 at 11:35 pm
  • Lionel (Paris)

    This priest says it better than I!
    We chose from the beginning to remain Catholic and nothing else. At Vatican II, the conciliar bishops have broken the bond that united them to the faithful.

    December 31, 2015 at 1:42 pm
  • Lionel (Paris)

    When I was young, we sang: “catholiques et français toujours!” (catholic and French for ever!)

    December 31, 2015 at 2:16 pm
  • Therese

    I attend a week-day NO – firstly because the parish priest says two traditional Masses a week, and last year asked for volunteers to clean the church (of which there are very few volunteers), and secondly as an act of penance. I try to remember the sentiments of the late, great Hamish Frazer. It is a trial; I sit in the back and kneel throughout and try to block out the inanity and Protestantism of the proceeding; it’s very difficult to say the Rosary as there’s so much oral content. I do this because I think the PP deserves support in his efforts to re-introduce Tradition, and because the tiny, elderly crew who do clean the church are NO, and it seems to me to be only right not to just leave this work to them, but to do my bit in cleaning God’s house, as I am benefiting from the privilege of hearing Holy Mass. The priest arranges for the “traditional” to receive Holy Communion kneeling at the NO, but of course I do not receive the Precious Blood from EMHCs, but only bow in reverence towards the chalice.

    I have the highest respect and a great deal of affection for my fellow “cleaners” and for their dedication to this weekly chore, but I do fear, from conversations I have had with two of them (there are only 4 of us!), that they have lost a lot of their “Catholicity”, which is hardly surprising as they have been bombarded by mediocrity and false teaching for over 40 years. The congregation is few and elderly (apart from the young family who attend who are also Traditional). It cannot go on long.

    I would like to say to Waterside that I have appreciated very much his contributions to this blog, but I do hope and pray that he will seriously reconsider being an EMHC. I find this common practice to be so repulsive to my sense of what is due to the Blessed Sacrament that I have found it difficult – well, to be honest, impossible – to overcome my anger at times; it is only recently, having got to know such a “minister”, that I have come to accept that even good people with good and humble hearts can be misled in such a catastrophic way that they can be persuaded to think that what they are doing is right in God’s eyes.

    And before anyone puts the case that there are circumstances in which it is permissible for lay people to distribute the Blessed Body of Our Lord, I know that. But they have to be extraordinary.

    December 31, 2015 at 4:18 pm
    • Lily


      But even in extraordinary circumstances, the laity never touched the Blessed Sacrament with their hands. It was always with white gloves and pincers. Bishop Schneider mentions that in his interview.

      December 31, 2015 at 6:16 pm
    • Christina

      Therese, that is a beautiful post, and I think your understanding of your fellow parishioners in their confusion is truly praiseworthy. I was privileged to know a lady who died a year or two ago, and who was one of the holiest people I have ever known, judging from every possible outward sign. She worked tirelessly for the restoration of the true Mass, yet went to the NO Mass in her parish every weekday, in spite of the fact that the PP was one of those poor souls who seem to hate the old Mass. She insisted on receiving her daily Communion kneeling and on the tongue, suffering his accusations that she was guilty of sinful pride (!) without weakening. I could not understand how she could tolerate a daily NO Mass, but she simply didn’t seem to want to educate herself about the wrongness of it and about the appalling state of the modern Church. She simply seemed to possess her soul in peace, and I envied her in a way. I certainly could not judge her or think that my rage and sorrow for the suffering Church placed my soul in a better place than hers. Far from it.

      January 1, 2016 at 12:07 am
      • Therese

        Thank you Christina, that’s very kind.

        January 1, 2016 at 5:39 pm
  • Therese



    December 31, 2015 at 6:45 pm
  • LadyCáit

    May I explain why I attend the NO mass everyday? I am just telling you my own reasoning, from my heart.
    I wish they had never tinkered with the mass. It hurts me. But I believe the new mass must be valid because I trust that the Holy Spirit wouldn’t let the Church promulgate error. Is that thinking sound? I mean the guitars and Eucharistic ministers, I know…its pretty disrespectful and distracting.
    But I go every morning because Jesus is there and I don’t want Him
    To feel ignored. I wear a chapel veil and take communion on the tongue. I bring my infants with me but they are always quiet.
    I am like a half-trad. I am glad the SSPX exists and I share their ideal but I want to strengthen the NO parishes from within too.
    Really I am a mother and not a theologian. I am open to criticism. Please please if you would pray for God to give me another baby (-: I am trying to raise a generation of servants for Christ.

    January 1, 2016 at 12:19 am
  • Athanasius


    You quite obviously have a good Catholic heart, but I think you are a little misguided in your opinion.

    The first point I would make is that none of us here beleives the New Mass to be invalid per se. We all share the view of the SSPX that it can certainly be valid if the priest uses the correct matter, form and intention. The difficulty with the New Mass, apart from its inherent Protestant theology, which erodes Catholic belief in the Real Presence and in the Mass as Our Lord’s Sacrifice on Calvary, the vernacular liturgy is open to great abuse by individual priests. It has been abused many times, altered out of all recognition in certain Masses, which, without doubt, were invalid. So these are the dangers of the New Mass and you continued presence at that Mass is not going to change a thing. In fact, it will have the opposite effect of appearing that you support that Mass rather than the ancient Mass of the Church.

    We have all been there before you, believe me, and we have all said enough is enough. You have the duty to sanctify your soul and the souls of your children. Forget everything else, just do what is absolutely essential for your own and your family’s sanctification. The crusade for the Mass is best fought by voting with your feet, assuming you can get to a Traditional Mass of course. Things are too far gone now, only God can restore the Mass to the entire Church.

    I don’t believe you are a “half-trad,” there is no such thing. I believe you are a Catholic who values faith handed down. You accept and believe in the entirey of Sacred Tradition and you want it back in every parish. This is a great grace, hang on to it! But you must, if possible, get yourself back to the Mass of the saints and martyrs.

    I will certainly pray that God grants you another child, as you wish, but perhaps He is waiting for you to make a certain move first, if you catch my drift. Pray also to St. Gerard Majella for his intercession.

    I hope God continues to bless both you and yours.

    January 1, 2016 at 12:53 pm
  • RCA Victor

    I have two more questions about the NOM (sorry to be a bit late, I’ve been pubbing, clubbing and scrubbing over the holiday) (and I wish one and all a Blessed New Year!). First, we all know that one of the conditions for validity is that the priest intends to do what the Church asks him to do at the Consecration. But how can we know, in this age of complete confusion and fly-by-night formation, what the intentions of a NOM priest are? Moreover, what about the 1100 Communists who, as Bella Dodd told us, infiltrated the seminaries back in the 1920s and 1930s and from thence into the priesthood? Surely they did not have the Church’s intention. Did that make all their TLM’s invalid? Or does God supply the intention somehow if it is missing (which I believe I heard or read somewhere)?

    Second, a question about the “graces” received during a NOM Communion, cited by several bloggers. Perhaps everyone here would agree that the Conciliar era has been characterized by a massive withdrawal of grace from the Church (probably beginning with John XXIII’s refusal to comply with Our Lady’s wishes in 1960, and then intensified as the “spirit of VII”/French Revolution of the Church took over). The fruits of this withdrawal of grace have left the Church in ruins. How then can graces be received at a NOM, if they have been withdrawn from the Church as a whole? Are we talking about different kinds of grace? Moreover, how can graces be bestowed at an NOM by a God who is at the same time displeased and offended by such a rite? Does it all depend on the interior disposition of the faithful?

    January 3, 2016 at 11:14 pm
  • Athanasius

    RCA Victor,

    One can usually tell immediately if a priest intends to do what the Church intends by his comportment and behaviour while celebrating Mass. If he sticks rigidly to the rubrics and seems to be reverent enough then the chances are he will consecrate validly. If, however, he diverts away from the rubrics with his own innovations and/or uses the wrong matter or form during consecration, then it’s pretty certain that his Mass is invalid. There are usually always signs that people can look out for.

    Alternatively, if a priest were to appear perfectly reverent and even use the correct matter and form, yet not believe what the Church believes, then his Mass would be invalid. The faithful, however, at least those in good faith, would not be responsible before God for the interior loss of faith of their priest. In such cases, assuming good will, the grace received by these souls would be equivalent to those received by people making a spiritual Communion.

    There is no withdrawal of grace from the Church now or at any time in the past. The grace of Our Lord will always be superabundant in His Church for those who wish to make use of it. Any absence of grace we see today, then, and let’s face it there’s a great deficiency, is caused by Catholic clergy and laity not making full use of the Traditional sources of grace available to them.

    The New Mass cannot be pleasing to God by reason of the Portestant theology that has become inherent to it. However, the consecration of the sacred species can never be less pleasing to God because it is still the body, blood, soul and divinity of His Divine Son. Therefore, it is the deficiencies in the New Mass, again causing people to lose sight of the Sacrificial nature of the Mass, and in many cases the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, which is at the root of many lost graces.

    As for those Communist infiltrators you speak of from the 1920s and 30s, well of course their Masses were always invalid for obvious reasons. There is no such thing as God supplying the intention to priests who don’t believe. These Masses would all have been counterfeit, unknown to the faithful of course. But then, we really don’t know who these infiltrators were/are or how many there truly were. I think that one is best left in God’s hands.

    January 4, 2016 at 12:19 am
  • Christina

    RCA Victor, it is important to distinguish the action of Christ here from the rite in which that action takes place. If an NOM is valid, according to the criteria that Athanasius has listed, then, irrespective of the rite, Christ, through the ministry of His priest, offers Himself to His Heavenly Father in an unbloody re-presentation of His sacrifice on Calvary. There are no degrees in this, since the merits of Christ’s Sacrifice, which constitute the intrinsic merits of every valid Mass, are infinite. Thus, notionally, anyway, there is no difference between a validly-celebrated NOM and TLM. However, the Mass contains both intrinsic and extrinsic merits, and the latter may be great or negligible according to many different factors. The first is the holiness of the priest. As St. Bonaventure says “All Masses are equally good, as far as Christ is concerned; but as far as the priest is concerned, one may be better than another. Therefore it is more profitable to hear the Mass of a good priest than of an indifferent one.” In the former case the priest derives more graces for himself, for those for whom he offers the Mass, and for the entire congregation.Then as far as the rite itself is concerned, in which Christ’s sacrifice is set, it may be more or less meritorious according to the language, symbols, gestures, etc., many of which, such as genuflections, signs of the Cross, indulgenced prayers, invocations of the Holy Name, are in themselves sacramentals and sources of grace. If the rite has grown over the centuries under the influence of the Holy Ghost, with its prayers and rubrics added or subtracted by saints and holy men, then it is extrinsically far more meritorious than a ‘banal, on the spot fabrication’ invented by a committee of men decidedly not inspired by the Holy Ghost, in which the prayers, language, symbols, gestures have been watered down or removed to make the rite acceptable to Protestants. The extrinsic merits of the Mass are also increased or decreased by the dispositions of the congregation, their reverence, attentiveness, and so on, and also by the external splendour of the rite, which is why Solemn Mass, with many assistants, music, beautiful vestments and ‘extras’ such as incensings is more extrinsically meritorious than Low Mass. So yes, the dispositions of the faithful determine the merits (grace) that they receive from the Mass, but nobody can obtain graces that are lacking because of the deficiencies of the rite, or even more lacking according to the abuses so often found in the Masses of individual priests and even, sad to say, of the Pope himself.

    January 7, 2016 at 11:42 am
    • RCA Victor

      Christina and Athanasius (and Editor),

      Thank you for your very helpful replies. I really should click on the “Follow” flag so I see these posts more quickly….at any rate, I just came across something in the December newsletter that seems to support the idea of graces withdrawn because of the NOM itself. Here is the conclusion of the last paragraph from column 1, page 16 of Editor’s “Dear Reader” column:

      “Yet, when we express our opinion – that with the introduction of a new Mass, God withdrew His grace to a greater or lesser extent – more often than not, they just can’t (or don’t want to) see it.”

      Now, I’m not trying to start a fight amongst the three of you (besides, I suspect Editor still has her rolling pin, which would give her an undue advantage – that is, unless she’s had a visit from Spirit of Vatican II termites in her flat), but I hope to get this clarified. So here’s my clumsy attempt:

      1. Grace is withdrawn because of the secularized responses, as it were, among clergy and faithful, to the secularized extrinsic merits, features and accidentals of the NOM (this seems to be what Christina is saying). …OR…

      2. Grace is withdrawn as a prior Divine action, you might say, i.e. His response to the promulgation of the abomination, because He is offended by a rite whose stated purpose is to avoid giving offense to heretics (this seems to be what Editor is saying). …OR…

      3. Grace is not withdrawn, simply not availed of (this seems to be what Athanasius is saying).

      January 7, 2016 at 10:56 pm
      • editor

        RCA Victor,

        I think there’s some confusion re. the withdrawal of grace.

        You quote me saying in the current editorial that “with the introduction of the New Mass God withdrew His grace, to a greater or lesser extent….” but note, I was not referring to individuals; we know that a repentant heart will always benefit from God’s grace.

        I was referring to a certain withdrawal of grace from the Church – as a people and that truth is well documented in Sacred Scripture. The one example (from the many available) which springs to my mind is Deuteronomy 8:19-20: But if thou forget the Lord thy God, and follow strange gods, and serve and adore them; behold now I foretell thee that thou shalt utterly perish. [Like] the nations [which went before] which the Lord destroyed, so shall you also perish, if you be disobedient to the voice of the Lord your God.”

        Thus, it is perfectly in keeping with the nature of God’s Mercy and Justice, that, perhaps even if only for a temporary period, He withdraws His grace from his people, as a people.

        I hope that’s clearer. I’m no expert, of course, and this crisis in the Church is unique, but I have no doubt that this aspect of the crisis will be discussed by scholars and theologians in the years to come. How else to explain the blindness of almost every prelate, and every modern pontiff over the past fifty years? If, as seems to be the case, these prelates have decided that they don’t like the way Christ designed His Church and they can make a better one, then God is likely to do what we know he does with those who reject His moral law – leave them to it.

        This in no way reflects on the indefectibility of Christ’s Church or the infallibility of the popes, that last two of whom, remember, have made clear that they are not calling on this gift of infallibility. Pope Benedict actually said as much in his book length interview with Peter Whatsisname. The Church cannot fail in teaching the truths of the Faith. That doesn’t mean that God cannot, if He chooses, punish this stubborn people, as He punished His people in biblical times.

        January 8, 2016 at 1:05 am
  • Christina

    RCA Victor’

    Grace is withdrawn because of the secularized responses, as it were, among clergy and faithful, to the secularized extrinsic merits, features and accidentals of the NOM (this seems to be what Christina is saying).

    No, that is not at all what I am saying. I did not mention ‘withdrawal of grace’ at all in my post (I hope), and I am sorry that I was very clearly not clear!!

    The infinite merits of Christ and the merits of all the saints constitute what is theologically known as the Treasury of merit of the Church and this is a most important concept to understand. It is from this Treasury that we obtain all the merits and graces that by our own cooperation we deserve. The Church can also dispense merit and grace from this treasury to souls by means of indulgences,

    The point under discussion is how much merit or grace can we obtain by attending an NOM v how much by attending TLM. The answer is very, very much less because the NOM has been stripped of a multitude of prayers, especially those prayers in the proper of TLM which speak of our utter unworthiness before God, of sin, wickedness, offence to God, eternal damnation, and so on. It has been stripped also of many signs and symbolic acts which are themselves indulgenced and earn merit for those attending as the Mass proceeds. In the new Missal all that modern man finds disturbing to his pride was removed as ‘negative’ by Bugnini’s Consilium. The Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican rather aptly describes the contrast between the prideful nature of man as perceived in the liturgy of the new Mass and his abandonment to God in the old. So, if one may so crudely express it, in the old Mass, if one attends it prayerfully, there are quite simply more goods available for the taking from the treasury of merit of the Church than there are in the new.

    I hope this is a little clearer, and that you can see that God’s ‘withdrawal of grace’ is not what I was saying – rather it was the contrast between the opportunities presented by both forms of Mass to draw merit and grace from the treasury of the Church.

    Here is the relevant entry from the Catholic Encyclopaedia which should make the concept of the treasury of the Church quite clear:

    Christ, as St. John declares in his First Epistle (2:2), “is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.” Since the satisfaction of Christ is infinite, it constitutes an inexhaustible fund which is more than sufficient to cover the indebtedness contracted by sin, Besides, there are the satisfactory works of the Blessed Virgin Mary undiminished by any penalty due to sin, and the virtues, penances, and sufferings of the saints vastly exceeding any temporal punishment which these servants of God might have incurred. These are added to the treasury of the Church as a secondary deposit, not independent of, but rather acquired through, the merits of Christ. The development of this doctrine in explicit form was the work of the great Schoolmen, notably Alexander of Hales (Summa, IV, Q. xxiii, m. 3, n. 6), Albertus Magnus (In IV Sent., dist. xx, art. 16), and St. Thomas (In IV Sent., dist. xx, q. i, art. 3, sol. 1). As Aquinas declares (Quodlib., II, q. vii, art. 16): “All the saints intended that whatever they did or suffered for God’s sake should be profitable not only to themselves but to the whole Church.” And he further points out (Contra Gent., III, 158) that what one endures for another being a work of love, is more acceptable as satisfaction in God’s sight than what one suffers on one’s own account, since this is a matter of necessity. The existence of an infinite treasury of merits in the Church is dogmatically set forth in the Bull “Unigenitus”, published by Clement VI, 27 Jan., 1343, and later inserted in the “Corpus Juris” (Extrav. Com., lib. V, tit. ix. c. ii): “Upon the altar of the Cross”, says the pope, “Christ shed of His blood not merely a drop, though this would have sufficed, by reason of the union with the Word, to redeem the whole human race, but a copious torrent. . . thereby laying up an infinite treasure for mankind. This treasure He neither wrapped up in a napkin nor hid in a field, but entrusted to Blessed Peter, the key-bearer, and his successors, that they might, for just and reasonable causes, distribute it to the faithful in full or in partial remission of the temporal punishment due to sin.” Hence the condemnation by Leo X of Luther’s assertion that “the treasures of the Church from which the pope grants indulgences are not the merits of Christ and the saints” (Enchiridion, 757). For the same reason, Pius VI (1794) branded as false, temerarious, and injurious to the merits of Christ and the saints, the error of the synod of Pistoia that the treasury of the Church was an invention of scholastic subtlety (Enchiridion, 1541).

    As a PS it is worth saying that with the near demise of the contemplative orders, the loss of holiness in so many of her priests, the massive loss of faith in her members, public sin and scandal and so on, the Church’s treasury is no longer being added to daily as used to be the case, and this is a matter of concern for the whole Church.

    January 8, 2016 at 1:06 pm
  • Christina

    I must add that this in no way contradicts what Editor has said about withdrawal of grace. I am limiting what I am saying to the merit and grace to be obtained by attending different RITES of Mass, with their different prayers, symbolic acts and so on which are in themselves meritorious or otherwise.

    January 8, 2016 at 1:15 pm
    • Lily

      I agree. I think the term withdrawal of grace might be misleading because it is not that God takes away grace from us but he just stops putting in grace, and seems to abandon us, as he did with his people Israel when they disobeyed him. I can’t see how anybody can deny that this it seems clear that God is not putting in grace to the Church at this time, or at least not in large measures, like when the Church leadership was faithful to the dogmas and commandments.

      January 8, 2016 at 4:31 pm
  • editor


    At the time of reading your quite shocking comments about novus ordo priests, I emailed the USA district with a link to this thread, directing them to your comments. I complimented them on their (I thought) innovative Against Sound Bites page, and asked if they would post the answer to the query about confessing to novus ordo priests. Here is the reply – please note that you have misread Fr Scott, big time:

    Dear [Editor]

    Good to hear from you and pardon my great delay in responding!

    The “Against the Sounds Bite” is actually part of our archived website, not the new one — but thank you for the compliment just the same!

    Concerning confession to priests in the Novus Ordo, the person in question obviously does not know that Fr. Peter Scott himself gave direct permission for faithful who attended our chapels to confess to certain mainstream priests who were known for their orthodoxy in confessional matters. I can specifically cite two examples, one here in Kansas City, MO (a Redemptorist who is still alive) and another in Chicago, IL (a now-deceased Franciscan); there were other priests as well.

    Obviously, for the reasons cited by Fr. Scott (cf. our archived site: the traditional faithful should in general avoid confessing to a priest of the Novus Ordo. However, such a prohibition is not absolute as your blogger would imply. Nonetheless, we would stress that such a matter needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, and thus it is recommended that an SSPX priest be consulted beforehand.

    Lastly, as this issue is affecting a blog in Scotland, I would suggest that you obtain a clarifying statement from the District Office for the United Kingdom (and also Scotland) on this matter, as they would be the appropriate local SSPX authorities to comment on it for the benefit of your blog.

    I hope that this helps to clarify the matter and God bless. END.

    I did contact the UK District Superior as suggested and he replied as follows:

    I agree with Fr. Scott. There are many good priests out there in the conciliar Church. They have the faith, but we differ in our prudential decision to stand up to the revolutionaries.

    I hope that clarifies the matter. Since this thread is now overdue for closure, and lest this information be lost, I’m going to post it again at the end of the thread.

    February 6, 2016 at 9:51 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: