Some words of wisdom, Eliza, from Bishop Williamson. This is the common sense teaching one always heard, until recently, from the SSPX:

Eleison Comments 263 (28 July 2012): Conciliar Infection

May Catholics who wish to keep the Faith attend a Tridentine Mass celebrated by a priest who is part of the Conciliar Church, for instance by his belonging to the Institute of Christ the King or to the Fraternity of St Peter? The answer has to be that, as a rule, a Catholic may not attend such a Mass, even if it is a Tridentine Mass, and even if it is worthily celebrated. What can be the justification for such a seemingly strict rule?

The basic reason is that the Catholic Faith is more important than the Mass. For if through no fault of my own even for a long time I cannot attend Mass but I keep the Faith, then I can still save my soul, whereas if I lose the Faith but for whatever reason go on attending Mass, I cannot save my soul (“Without faith it is impossible to please God” – Heb. XI, 6). Thus I attend Mass in order to live my Faith, and, belief going with worship, I attend the true Mass in order to keep the true Faith. I do not keep the Faith in order to attend Mass.

It follows that if the celebration of a Tridentine Mass is surrounded by circuмstances that threaten to undermine my faith, then depending on the gravity of the threat, I may not attend such a Mass. That is why Masses celebrated by schismatic Orthodox priests may be valid, but the Church in her right mind used to forbid Catholics to attend on pain of grave sin, because, belief and worship going together, the non-Catholic worship threatened the Catholics’ faith. Now Orthodoxy has in the course of centuries caused huge harm to the Catholic Church, but can anything compare with the devastation wrought upon that Church within mere tens of years by Conciliarism? If then Catholics were forbidden to attend Mass in Orthodox circuмstances, would not the same Church in her right mind forbid to attend a Tridentine Mass celebrated in Conciliar circuмstances?

Then what is meant by Conciliar circuмstances? The answer must be, any circuмstances which, over a shorter or longer period of time, are going to make me think that the Second Vatican Council was not an utter disaster for the Church. Such a circuмstance might be a charming and believing priest who has no problem with celebrating either the new or the old Mass, and who preaches and acts as though the Council presents no serious problem. Conciliarism is so dangerous because it can so be made to seem Catholic that I can lose the Faith without – or almost without – realizing it.

Of course common sense will take into account a variety of special circuмstances. For instance a good priest trapped for now within the Conciliar church may need encouragement to start on his way out of it by my attending his first celebrations of the true Mass. But the general rule must remain that I can have nothing to do with even the true Mass being celebrated in a Conciliar context. For confirmation, notice how Rome began by allowing the Institute of the Good Shepherd to celebrate exclusively the true Mass, because Rome knew that once the Institute had swallowed the official hook, eventually Rome could be sure of pulling the Institute into their Conciliar net. Sure enough. It took only five years.

That is the danger of any practical agreement without a doctrinal agreement between Rome and the Society of St Pius X. So long as Rome believes in its Conciliar doctrine, it is bound to use any such agreement to pull the SSPX in the direction of the Council, and the context of every SSPX Mass would become Conciliar, if not rapidly, at least in the long run. Forewarned is forearmed.

Kyrie eleison.

Bishop Richard Williamson


In a book published by the Fathers of Holy Cross Seminary (The SSPX Australian Seminary) - Most Asked Questions About The SSPX (beware of modern sanitized version) - We read in response to the question of what we are to think of the FSSP (which by extension we could apply to the ICKSP):

"This being so, attending their Mass is:

 - accepting the compromise on which they are based,
 - accepting the direction taken by the Conciliar Church
   and the consequent destruction of the Catholic Faith and practices, and
 - accepting, in particular, the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness
    of the Novus Ordo Missae and Vatican II.

That is why a Catholic ought not to attend their Masses"

We can certainly add to this, as mentioned by others, at least some doubt as to the validity of their priestly ordinations.

The ICK are obedient sons of the Conciliar Church and will be as traditional as "obedience" allows them to be and no more. It is a compromise, quite simply, to say the least.

We must never lose sight of the fact that we are in a fight for the Faith, first and foremost.

So are we to understand by this, that if one is in danger of death and the only sacraments that can be had are doubtfully valid, we may receive them?
And would this mean, for instance, that if I am in danger of death, and the only priest available is a "continuing Anglican" or vagus Orthodox priest, who insists that his orders and apostolic lines of succession are valid in the eyes of Rome, I may receive the sacraments?  What if he has celebrated a Mass and offers you viaticuм consecrated in that Mass?  It may be valid, it probably is valid, but you do not know that for a fact.  Do you risk committing idolatry and sacrilege by worshiping a Eucharist that could possibly be nothing more than bread (because invalid)?

Let me be clear that I do not view the sacraments of the ICKSP as invalid or doubtfully valid.

If one accepts the NO as Catholic and attends the NO service at all, then why would one *not* expect to have a NO priest (more likely it would be a NO lay minister) bring them a NO viaticuм in their danger of death? During their life, this person put themself in an awful position when it comes time for their danger of death - of this there is no doubt whatsoever.   

By the same token, that particular scary thought should not really even enter into a trad's mind. I mean, who here believes that God would send a NO lay minister to give a NO viaticuм to a faithful traditional Catholic, one who altogether rejects and has sworn off the NO and lived their life faithful to only the true faith, Mass and sacraments?