There are two views of the New MassDid you mean to say you hold to "2"? Because it sounds like you hold to "1". :confused:
the extreme view of Fr. Wathen, namely that the New Mass is supposedly "idolatry", "heresy", "blasphemy", always a "sacrilege", and a "mortal sin" etc.If you go read the "Ottaviani Intervention", which was written by Cardinal Ottaviani (the top theologian in rome at the time), along with Cardinal Bacci and other theologians, you will see his (paraphrased) conclusions:
https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2023/08/on-superior-merit-of-traditional-mass.htmlI listened to many sermons and talks by the good Father, but the bolded is what prompted me to abandon Fr. Ripperger for good.
Before anyone panics, let me add that Fr. Ripperger basis his conclusion upon a clear distinction between the intrinsic and extrinsic value of a Mass. The intrinsic value a Mass refers to the value in the Mass as a work of God, particularly in the ex opere operato graces present in the Eucharistic sacrifice. The intrinsic value of any valid Mass is therefore infinite, since it is Christ's own infinitely valuable sacrifice to the Father. Intrinsically, then, the New Rite of Mass is just as efficacious as the traditional rite or as any other valid rite, inasmuch as the infinite value of the Eucharistic sacrifice is present in both forms.
If you go read the "Ottaviani Intervention", which was written by Cardinal Ottaviani (the top theologian in rome at the time), along with Cardinal Bacci and other theologians, you will see his (paraphrased) conclusions:
1. The new mass is a "striking departure from the Faith at Trent" (i.e. heresy).
2. The new mass' theology is anti-Trent (i.e. new religion/idolatry).
3. The new mass' consecration is "positively doubtful" (i.e. canon law states it is a mortal sin to attend doubtful sacraments, except in danger of death).
So, these Cardinals agreed with Fr Wathen's main points. And they were critiquing the "most pure form" of the new mass, before it had been released, post V2. These Cardinals were asked by Paul VI to analyze the new mass and give their opinions. They condemned it 100%.
The rest of Fr Wathen's condemnations (i.e. blasphemy and sacrilege) were confirmed AFTER the new mass was officially released, when the ACTUAL "mass" was much worse than the "pure form". The blasphemy/sacrilege came from 'communion-in-the-hand', the 'new age/community' antics of the "priests" and the gross irreverence/sacrilege of the "smells and bells" of this abomination.
So, yes, Fr Wathen was right. And many other of the "pioneer Trads" of the 70s/80s agreed with him.
The sspx was always wishy-washy on the new mass and still are.
Wouldn't "it is a mortal sin to attend receive doubtful sacraments" be a better wording?The canon law prohibition applies to both 1) attendance at doubtful masses and 2) reception of doubtful sacraments. Since we're talking about the new mass, I used the term "attendance". It would still be a grave sin to attend a doubtful mass, even if you do not receive Holy Communion. Just like it would be a grave sin to go to confession to a doubtful priest (except in danger of death), even if you are only confessing venial sins. Canon Law's prohibition is to prevent the growth of dubious priests and any attendance/cooperation with such is a grave sin. Such is the danger of doubtful sacraments, that the Church prohibits such in a stern manner.
The canon law prohibition applies to both 1) attendance at doubtful masses and 2) reception of doubtful sacraments. Since we're talking about the new mass, I used the term "attendance". It would still be a grave sin to attend a doubtful mass, even if you do not receive Holy Communion. Just like it would be a grave sin to go to confession to a doubtful priest (except in danger of death), even if you are only confessing venial sins. Canon Law's prohibition is to prevent the growth of dubious priests and any attendance/cooperation with such is a grave sin. Such is the danger of doubtful sacraments, that the Church prohibits such in a stern manner.
Putting aside the issue of 'doubtful masses/sacraments' (which is no small matter), Quo Primum would also make the new mass a grave sin (even "passive" attendance). Because the new mass is DEFINITELY, positively contrary to Quo Primum and therefore a grave sin (even if the priest is a real priest).
Canon Law forbids doubtful masses and also scandalous/blasphemous masses. And also heretical/schismatic masses. Quo Primum forbids ALL non-TLM rites, which makes the new mass schismatic and a grave offense.
The indult would also be forbidden by canon law, the same way the valid, Anglican masses were forbidden right after Henry VIII. The indult/Anglican (and also the Arian masses of St Athanasius' day) may have been/be valid, but they are tainted with schism/heresy because they are explicitly and openly part of/supportive to the Arian, Anglican, V2 heresies. So by going to the indult, you are saying you are accepting of the new mass, because you are attending a priest/society which is "under new rome". This is quasi-schismatic and a condoning of V2 heresy.
In your description, any sin is on the new-sspx leadership. But, it would become sinful for you, if you continued to go to this doubtful priest, knowing he was not conditionally re-ordained.
There are two views of the New Mass (among non-sedes/excluding that for now) among non-sede Traditional Catholics: (1) one, that of Fr. Ripperger, that the TLM is objectively superior to the NOM, and merits more graces from God. In a similar way, 15 decades of the Rosary is more meritorious than 5 decades and thus objectively superior to it, though both merit grace. (2) two, the extreme view of Fr. Wathen, namely that the New Mass is supposedly "idolatry", "heresy", "blasphemy", always a "sacrilege", and a "mortal sin" etc. Even Bp. Williamson recently rejected the Wathenite for the Rippergerite view, though Bp. Williamson is not exactly Indult. And most importantly, (1) holds the NOM is only deficient, which is compatible with the Church Hierarchy's Indefectibility, whereas (2) holds the NOM to be positively DEFECTIVE, which word-for-word contradicts the Church's Indefectibility.The Rosary is a sacramental, not a sacrament. Apples and Oranges.
Which view do you hold and why? I hold 2, and some of the reasons why are explained by Fr. Ripperger in his original "Merit of a Mass" article and in the below article on Unam Sanctam Catholicam that reviews it:
Fr. Ripperger concludes that the Traditional Rite of Mass is objectively more meritorious.This is obviously true, because an illicit/sinful mass is not meritorious at all. And the novus ordo is illicit/sinful due to Quo Primum.
Before anyone panics, let me add that Fr. Ripperger basis his conclusion upon a clear distinction between the intrinsic and extrinsic value of a Mass. The intrinsic value a Mass refers to the value in the Mass as a work of God, particularly in the ex opere operato graces present in the Eucharistic sacrifice.Only the TLM, said by a 100% non-doubtful priest, said in accordance with Quo Primum (i.e. not in accordance with V2/new-rome) has any intrinsic value.
The intrinsic value of any valid Mass is therefore infinite, since it is Christ's own infinitely valuable sacrifice to the Father.This applies to the True Mass only.
Intrinsically, then, the New Rite of Mass is just as efficacious as the traditional rite or as any other valid rite, inasmuch as the infinite value of the Eucharistic sacrifice is present in both forms.This is just horrible, misguided theology. Validity is not the only "litmus test" of grace. One must also consider the licitness and morality of an act. The new mass, even if valid, and even if said in the most "reverent way possible" is 100% illicit (and therefore sinful) and this makes it immoral. The only graces which flow from the new mass, are by way of God's mercy, to those who still haven't grasped/accepted that the V2/new mass machine is heretical and anti-catholic.
Taken together, Fr. Ripperger concludes that the rite of the Traditional Mass is structured in such a way as to enable a greater disposition of prayerfulness and piety,Uhh...because it is of Divine origin, directly from Christ. God created the True Mass and that's why its "structure" is perfect.
which in turn means the graces we reap from the traditional Mass can be objectively greater than those available in the Novus Ordo—without denying the validity of the New Mass, nor calling into question that "Christ is there" in the Eucharist of the Novus Ordo. One need not question the validity of the Novus Ordo to understand that, objectively, the framework of the traditional Mass opens up the possibility of a greater merit when considered extrinsically.Christ can also be present at a Black Satanic Mass, but that doesn't mean that His Presence is pleasing to God the Father, nor that it provides grace, nor that we deny the validity of (certain) Satanic Masses.