If you mean that someone who has refused to go but don’t condemn it, it’s essentially the bipolar position of the FSSP that certain sectors in the SSPX have been leaning towards. And it’s ridiculous. “The Latin Mass is our spirituality” shows that the faith is a separate point. I know people who seems to only care about the “pretty music”. The Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ is not a sonata, it’s a bloody fight against the power of the world, flesh and devil which is promoted by the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic powers that be. And any kind of halfway cooperation is a cop out, and proves one to be a sell out on our faith. 

I wanted to throw out to you all what the person in question said.  It was precisely as written above.  Before I made a response, or asked for further clarification, I wanted to see if perhaps I was missing something and wanted the opinion of others.

Maybe I am wrong, but it seems the persons hesitates to call it a sacrilege - because it is blasphemy to call a Mass a sacrilege??  As long as the NO may be a Mass, it cannot be blasphemed by being called a sacrilege. I can't make sense of the statement any other way. 

Well - ridiculous.  This person, I believe, has to fudge on this because of family members, et al.  Cannot brook the hard position, so in apparent piety, pulls the necessary punch, and life stays easier.  It's high and elevated way to think about it.    

What does Our Lord say about "Yea yea - no no"?  And what of the person calling evil good and good, evil?

Quo Primum says if anyone dares to touch the Tridentine Mass, he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and the Holy Apostles, Peter and Paul.  With THAT kind of muscle to back you up, there is no excuse (with Confirmation graces to help you, even!), for not seeing the obvious.     

Interesting TCK video:

Bishop Williamson New Mass is Valid but illicit

Short video visually contrasts Church history, which appears to contradict Bp. Williamson's audio sermon position on the newMass.

This may explain why Father Wathen's works are ghetto-ized along with Father Leonard Feeney discussions.

Best to go the Defeat Modernism's video. It's the same as TCK, and it TCK's video came about 6 months after DM's video, which lends more merit to the suspicion that TCK rips people's productions off and doesn't give them credit). Don't give TCN any traffic. Let him keep paying for his traffic. LOL

Stubborn, funny you should ask.  This person has told me that Fr. Wathen at the 1970 point or so, wanted to consult with same  about the Novus Ordo. This person, claiming to always be absolutely against it, claims to have shared that sentiment with Fr. Wathen, and then told me that Fr. went out with a stronger opinion against the NO on account of this conversation.  THAT's the kind of "opposition" this person makes claim to - the highest, and from the get-go.  So now, this person cannot then nor at present call the NO a sacrilege, but claims to have made an improvement on Fr. Wathen, who always called it The Great Sacrilege?  

I have yet to make answer to "the person" on all this, but I think the account above, if true, even, is a presumptuous stretch on their part.  Once Fr. Wathen got away from his bishop, he was already fully loaded against the New Mass.  The impression of this person was probably Fr. Wathen's humility in putting it forth as "consulting" about the Mass.  He was always willing to make sure, or discuss it.  But he, as we know, left most in the dust on the subject - and, sadly, obviously, this particular "traditionalist" as well.  (Would that all priests had his spirit, and did not equivocate on the subject!  As a priest of Christ, nay, successor of the Apostles, does Bishop Williamson ever sound ANGRY about the New Mass, with a priest's indignity who clearly says we must reject it??  How does he know it is valid - it is a questionable point at best!)          

Well, I believe the person above attends a nearby indult "Mass."  And this person is of the type that likes to sit around with intellectuals and discuss things, pull apart the happenings in the Vatican's political life, be the high mucky-muck sophisticate -- and not first keep to the reality of the current Passion of Our Lord in the New Mass and the hateful atrocities endured in that "eucharist" - just as bad if He is not present, since He is SUPPOSED to be present at a "Mass" is He not?  The world has caved in around our ears for lack of the blessings of the True Mass, and because of the egregiousness of the Mass of Man/Novus Ordo which is offered in Its stead - and this person cannot see this awful fruit, this change in the result??  There is cravenness or sophistry in mincing the conclusion of sacrilege.  Stubborn, I feel this person would just continue to blow off Fr. Wathen, even after this sermon.  Which sermon, by the way, was typical.  He never went very long before reminding us of why we were there, at that Mass, and instructing how to cope with both living in the world of the Modern Church, and the outside world as unprotected by the Modern Church.  He had a care for his sheep in this way, and by such reminders and instructions did all he could to avoid giving out Our Lord at the Communion rail to those in mortal sin via such a failure:  Novus Ordo or Indult Mass attendance.

It is a mercy and a charity to proclaim against the New Mass, and its evil tool, partner in crime, the Indult Mass.  This person mentioned above can have some influence over others, and can use prayers, as can we all.

       

Upon receiving this person's message, my first impulse was to rip off an email in response.  But I waited, wanting things to settle.  My thoughts were:

Like many who "don't get" the True Mass issue, that they -

1: Don't really understand what the Mass is!   2: They often have no or little respect for Quo Primum.


And then they proceed to mince away the Mass issue in pieces, via words, equivocations, sophistries and superciliousness.

Truly, I did want to hand this person a Great Sacrilege, and say, "Read it, if you never have.  And if you have, read it again."

But this may be taken as an insult and/or just be a waste of time.  For this person feels they are a "teacher of Israel."  They themselves write Church things to instruct others, you see.  

But brains, nor eyes, nor grace seem to have affected this person - yet.  And one would think that with older Catholics especially, who have spent many pre-Vatican II adult years living the parish life, and experiencing the Church with NO OTHER MASS but the Latin Mass holding court, with no thought of any other Mass being referred to or even imagined when the word "Mass" was used in any context - with everyone thinking the same thing when Mass was mentioned or thought of - you would think that such a person as this one claims to be, and with this experience and background, would react electrified and with an absolute shout of "Sacrilege!" when the New Mass crept in.  But no.  

Now in old age, well, the day is drawing late.  

I like the the brevity and correspondent bluntness of Fr. Wathen in this sermon, only 8 minutes long, starts at about the 1:35 minute mark. He pretty much forgets about all the pussy footing around this subject matter, just says what needs to be said, hits you with both barrels right between the eyes.

Yes, he concludes that a valid Pope could promulgate a sacrilegeous Mass.

Yes, he concludes that a valid Pope could promulgate a sacrilegeous Mass.

Yes, he concludes it for the simplest of reasons - because that is what happened.

He explains the sede's "pope problem" with this, in the first part of The Great Sacrilege.