[Meg]

Ripperger WAS with the FSSP but left to start his own order. The FSSP are trained to divert faithful SSPX'ers and lead them to FSSP. It's a trap I did not fall for. So are the indult masses.

Yes, it's likely that JP2 started the FSSP in order to take trads away from the SSPX. 

However, there are some FSSP priests who are sympathetic to the SSPX. Yesterday I didn't feel like going to the SSPX mass, so I went to FSSP which is in my neighborhood. I was quite surprised when the priest mentioned Archbishop Lefebvre during the homily, and he spoke very well about him, and said that the FSSP came from the SSPX. I had NEVER before heard an FSSP priest say anything about the late Archbishop. I was quite bowled-over. 

The indult Masses are tainted with the modern church, to be sure. I could describe the differences between the SSPX and the Indult FSSP, but why bother. The SSPX is still better than the FSSP. The Resistance masses are better to attend, if possible. 

[kiwiboy]

And how do I make spiritual communions?

"My Lord Jesus Christ, I desire to be united to thee now and forever"

Then (or better before) unite your self to the holy Sacrifices of the Mass. I have not found a formal formula for that one so I just make my own.  "I unite myself to all the Holy Sacrifices of the Mass being made this day".


I disagree with the Admin on the "yellow light" position. "If I decide for my family" is totally subjective.

What a good Catholic must know is that there is a conciliar Church, a cancer within the Catholic Church. A normal reaction to knowing this is to wish to stay away from it. The moral theology of the Church obliges us to stay away from valid sacraments in the case of a danger to the faith and an alignment with heresy and schism. Both these conditions are met perfectly in the SSPX. Sorry people, but it is the truth.

The sacraments are not toys to make us feel good. If a person is worried about their kids, then welcome to the real world. You are only enduring what Catholic parents have endured for thousands of years in isolated places. What gives you the right to bend the rules just because you don't want to say no to your child?

Anyway, Takion, that last bit was not addressed to you but to others. Don't worry about the politics of the resistance too much. Just follow what the Church has always taught and you won't go wrong. Japanese Catholics endured no sacraments for 200 years. God will certainly reward you if you can resist going to an SSPX Mass.


And to all the naysayers out there, I'm sorry to admit it, but Father Pfeiffer was right on this issue and we were wrong. This happens. Deal with it. Swallow your pride and do the right thing yourselves and stop taking advantage of the humility of a new convert.

[Samuel]

..

What a good Catholic must know is that there is a conciliar Church, a cancer within the Catholic Church. A normal reaction to knowing this is to wish to stay away from it. The moral theology of the Church obliges us to stay away from valid sacraments in the case of a danger to the faith and an alignment with heresy and schism. Both these conditions are met perfectly in the SSPX. Sorry people, but it is the truth.

The sacraments are not toys to make us feel good. If a person is worried about their kids, then welcome to the real world. You are only enduring what Catholic parents have endured for thousands of years in isolated places. What gives you the right to bend the rules just because you don't want to say no to your child?

Anyway, Takion, that last bit was not addressed to you but to others. Don't worry about the politics of the resistance too much. Just follow what the Church has always taught and you won't go wrong. Japanese Catholics endured no sacraments for 200 years. God will certainly reward you if you can resist going to an SSPX Mass.

And to all the naysayers out there, I'm sorry to admit it, but Father Pfeiffer was right on this issue and we were wrong. This happens. Deal with it. Swallow your pride and do the right thing yourselves and stop taking advantage of the humility of a new convert.

There is a danger in attending a mass that is poisoned, but there is also a danger in having no mass to attend. The real question to ask is "which danger is greater", and that question is something that each person must answer in his own circuмstances.

It is not a black and white question, as for example St. Thomas Aquinas when speaking about heretics teaches that "until the Church's sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass." (Summa, III, q82, a9). If it is lawful, no Catholic has the right to forbid it. 

Fr. Pfeiffer acts as if his own mass is the only one that is free of danger, and in this he is absolutely wrong, on the contrary!

[kiwiboy]

There is a danger in attending a mass that is poisoned, but there is also a danger in having no mass to attend. The real question to ask is "which danger is greater", and that question is something that each person must answer in his own circuмstances.

It is not a black and white question, as for example St. Thomas Aquinas when speaking about heretics teaches that "until the Church's sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass." (Summa, III, q82, a9). If it is lawful, no Catholic has the right to forbid it.

Fr. Pfeiffer acts as if his own mass is the only one that is free of danger, and in this he is absolutely wrong, on the contrary!

Yes, well Father Pfeiffer has gone to other extremes. This is not the place to discuss this.

It is ridiculous to insinuate that I am "forbidding" it. The theology of the Church forbids it. I have no jurisdictional authority to do anything. Take it up with God almighty if you have a problem.

And since the St. Thomas' the Church has pronounced many times on attending Masses of heretics and schismatics. . The answer was NO, NO, and NO again! Stop trying to make gray where things are black and white.

Serious issues like this require us to be detached from our sentiments and human respect.

[kiwiboy]

oh and by the way... there is no "danger" in doing the will of God according to the teaching of the Church.

Another unhealthy insinuation because you are trying to scare someone away from doing the right thing.

[Samuel]

Yes, well Father Pfeiffer has gone to other extremes. This is not the place to discuss this.

It is ridiculous to insinuate that I am "forbidding" it. The theology of the Church forbids it. I have no jurisdictional authority to do anything. Take it up with God almighty if you have a problem.

And since the St. Thomas' the Church has pronounced many times on attending Masses of heretics and schismatics. . The answer was NO, NO, and NO again! Stop trying to make gray where things are black and white.

Serious issues like this require us to be detached from our sentiments and human respect.

I did not say that you are "forbidding" it, but I do say that those who pontificate or glorify an extreme red light position are giving the impression that their opinion is based on Church doctrine. On the contrary, such an extreme position is based on emotions instead of on doctrine.

In fact, you just proved my point by claiming that the Church "has pronounced... The answer was NO, NO and NO again!".

The Church advises us to avoid the heretic even before the Church's judgment, but she only forbids us attending their mass after the Church's pronouncement.

[Samuel]

oh and by the way... there is no "danger" in doing the will of God according to the teaching of the Church.

Another unhealthy insinuation because you are trying to scare someone away from doing the right thing.

No, but there is a grave danger in listening to a false representation of the teaching of the Church, especially when these teachers tell us to stay away from the Sacraments.

The right thing for this person to do is to save his soul. And if he cannot do that without attending an SSPX Mass, then let him attend it.

[Samuel]

This is not good advice to give to the OP, i.e. it's best to stay home and avoid the SSPX because there is no Resistance chapel near.

We are under a most serious obligation to attend the Holy Sacrifice (not the NOM - we are obligated to avoid the NOM). It is the third of the Ten Commandments and it is Precept of the Church. If one can make it to the Holy Sacrifice on Sundays and Holy Days then one must go, it is our duty and we are under a most serious obligation to attend - and we must go or commit a mortal sin. This is the teaching of the Church, this is the Third Commandment and Precept of the Church. The SSPX has valid priests and they offer the Holy Sacrifice that the Church obligated us to attend - if there is an SSPX Mass within a hundred miles or so and you can make it, then you MUST go.

In the Old Testament, sacrifice to God was one of God's most necessary requirements, and now the sacrificial Lamb is Our Lord, really and physically present under the appearance of bread and wine, it still remains one of God's most necessary requirements in the New Testament because of what it is - and it is for that reason that to miss it when it's readily available to us is a mortal sin.  

There are many confused souls in this crisis who do not understand the seriousness of the obligation we are under to assist at the Holy Sacrifice every Sunday and Holy day of obligation. They confuse the NOM with the Holy Sacrifice and often end up at a NOM when they should stay home - but they must not confuse that with the SSPX's Holy Sacrifice, which we are obligated to attend if we can get to it under pain of mortal sin.  

There are reasons to miss Mass, but missing it for the reason given above is most certainly not one of them.  

To be precise, we have an obligation to keep the Lord's day holy (Divine Law).

And the Church has decided that the way we keep the Lord's day holy is by attending Mass (Ecclesiastical Law).

It is therefore possible that a situation arises where we would violate the Divine Law by complying with the Ecclesiastical Law.

In such a case the higher law takes precedence and the Ecclesiastical Law must be ignored in order to comply with the Divine Law.

So the question becomes: do we still keep the Lord's day holy by attending a Mass by the SSPX?

And that depends on the circuмstances: what is the priest like, what about his sermons, what about the level of treason by the congregation he represents, what about scandal, etc ..

The former SSPX judged that in the case of those "who are in the process of betraying Tradition" we should not attend their Mass for various reasons.

Today, we can apply the same reasoning to the (Neo) SSPX itself, always allowing room for those who are not yet fully aware of the gravity of the situation, or those who would do greater harm by not attending Mass at all. Not everyone is at the same level of the battle.

[Jovita]

Not everyone is at the same level of the battle.

It is very confusing, to say the least. Saddest part, Catholics, whereever they are stationed, by default, view all Catholics as hostile, with suspicion. No one takes you under their wing to guide you. This is NOT the tradition as handed down by the Apostles.

.

I have sat at mass and have had no one talk to me, no one can answer a question. This is of course the NO and indult. It's why I fled to the Eastern Catholics. Not much better but at least there is better access to the priests.

[kiwiboy]

I did not say that you are "forbidding" it, but I do say that those who pontificate or glorify an extreme red light position are giving the impression that their opinion is based on Church doctrine. On the contrary, such an extreme position is based on emotions instead of on doctrine.

In fact, you just proved my point by claiming that the Church "has pronounced... The answer was NO, NO and NO again!".

The Church advises us to avoid the heretic even before the Church's judgment, but she only forbids us attending their mass after the Church's pronouncement.

Samuel,

You are wasting my time and the time of the poor person who started this thread.

Re: forbidding; Well then you should choose your words more carefully in future. If you want to attack my person go ahead and say it, rather than cloaking it in falsities.

Extreme red light position? So there is a regular red light position?

Re: "before", "after" and all that other nonsense. They are arbitrary distinctions. What you are saying in effect means that we can attend the Novus Ordo because the Church hasn't forbidden that specifically. I mean, just think about the words coming out of your mouth.

Heretics will come up with useless distinctions and say that their specific error was not condemned. It is a classic tactic used by them. I am not of course saying you are a heretic, but you are unwittingly using the tactics of one, because of your error on this point.

The Church has already pronounced on modernism, and already on attending protestant services. END OF STORY.

[kiwiboy]

In trying to portray me as emotional and a Pfeifferite (which is totally false by the way), you will fool some, but not the more discerning.

You have to examine issue by issue, and not just throw out everything a person says, just because you don't like them. Father Pfeiffer has made a lot of enemies because of stupid behavior. But he is not the only one advocating the red light. Father Pivert in France and Father Edward MacDonald in Ireland ( I believe also Fr. Ballini), do also. All the liberals in the resistance can do is attack their persons. A boringly predictable tactic.

The rules for attending the SSPX are the same for the Novus Ordo; only for weddings, funerals and professional reasons. There is no essential difference between the two.

Instead of rushing to reply and splash your error all over this forum, try just exercising some interior recollection and humility. You could be wrong on this point. Are you open to that?



"The Lord who is just will cut the necks of sinners" - Psalm 129

[Stubborn]

To be precise, we have an obligation to keep the Lord's day holy (Divine Law).

And the Church has decided that the way we keep the Lord's day holy is by attending Mass (Ecclesiastical Law).

It is therefore possible that a situation arises where we would violate the Divine Law by complying with the Ecclesiastical Law.

In such a case the higher law takes precedence and the Ecclesiastical Law must be ignored in order to comply with the Divine Law.

So the question becomes: do we still keep the Lord's day holy by attending a Mass by the SSPX?

And that depends on the circuмstances: what is the priest like, what about his sermons, what about the level of treason by the congregation he represents, what about scandal, etc ..

The former SSPX judged that in the case of those "who are in the process of betraying Tradition" we should not attend their Mass for various reasons.

Today, we can apply the same reasoning to the (Neo) SSPX itself, always allowing room for those who are not yet fully aware of the gravity of the situation, or those who would do greater harm by not attending Mass at all. Not everyone is at the same level of the battle.

You make good points but I still say we do not (yet) "violate the Divine Law by complying with the Ecclesiastical Law" when we attend an SSPX Mass whether a resistance Mass can be had or not. Also, when there is no Holy Sacrifice that we can get to, we do not sin by missing it. The Church made going to Mass obligatory so it is up to the Church to provide it for us, if the Church does not provide it for us then there is no sin. In that case, we still should comply with divine law.

The danger IMO these days lies more in what is *not* preached, or not preached enough, or is watered down at SSPX Masses. Personally, I have not heard anything preached that anyone could claim to actually be dangerous to souls at an SSPX Mass since the 80s, that was when when Fr. (now bishop) Sanborn was aggressively preaching and promoting sedevacantism from the pulpit.

I do know with certainty of one SSPX priest who gave one of the SSPX parishioners at my chapel permission to no longer attend the SSPX Mass and go to the NO "mass" due to the distance he would have needed to travel to get to the SSPX. I have also heard of other SSPX priests doing the same, but I am only certain of this one case. The sad reality is that this person was a trad for a long time and now goes to the NOM or indult, depending on whats playing I guess.  

In my opinion, this is dangerous, even scandalous and it is insane for both, the trad to even ask permission for such a thing, as well as for the SSPX priest to grant permission for such a thing when he should have wholly condemned the idea - it is insane and scandalous imo. Yet didn't +Williamson essentially give that same exact advice only a few years ago? - (which incidentally, is about the same time the SSPX priest gave his permission.)

Do we now stay home from both SSPX and Resistance?  
 

[Jovita]

Do we now stay home from both SSPX and Resistance?  
 

This is where it leads Catholics wanting to come back to the church. We stay home. We light a candle in our home altar.

[Stubborn]

This is where it leads Catholics wanting to come back to the church. We stay home. We light a candle in our home altar.

The point I was trying to make was that we can find reasons to avoid or condemn the SSPX, Resistance and whatever other trads groups and independent priests feeding their flocks that are out there. But the only actual reason we go to these groups in the first place is for the Mass and the sacraments - and we do that because a) we need the Mass and the sacraments and b) they are the only ones we can get the Mass and the sacraments from.

Having stayed home when there was no Mass, I personally do not recommend it except when there literally is no True Mass available. I know of a few families who stayed home when they could have gone to Mass, and +40 years later they're still home and more resolved than ever that there is no priests and nowhere to go and that's where they must remain until the Second Coming.

We stay home when there is only the new "mass" available or for whatever good reason we cannot get to the True Mass. But there is no mistaking that we are obligated to go to Mass every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation under pain of mortal sin - that is the teaching of the Church. We are likewise obligated to confess our sins and receive Holy Communion only once a year - that is also a teaching of the Church.

Fr. Wathen:
People should know that attending the Indult Mass represents a very serious compromise of their faith. Before a bishop allows the Traditional Latin Mass in one of his Novus Ordo churches, according to papal direction, he exacts this commitment: Those to whom the Mass is made available must give a verbal acceptance to the Second Vatican Council and to the new mass. Whether they know it or not, everyone who attends the Indult Mass makes the same implicit commitment. In the days of the Rome persecutions, a Catholic could escape martyrdom if he would burn the tiniest pinch of incense before one of the countless Roman gods. The commitment which the pope and bishops require is that pinch of incense.

[Samuel]

You make good points but I still say we do not (yet) "violate the Divine Law by complying with the Ecclesiastical Law" when we attend an SSPX Mass whether a resistance Mass can be had or not.
 ..
But there is no mistaking that we are obligated to go to Mass every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation under pain of mortal sin - that is the teaching of the Church.
..

That depends on your circuмstances. In my local SSPX I know of quite a few people who regularly come home from Mass all worked up because of a bad sermon, who have to "undo" the damage to their children afterwards, who have to try and get their children not to see the immodesty, who try and sneak away so as not to confront other people, etc.. Some people stopped going, some keep going back for more.

I don't think that this is a good way to keep the Sunday holy, especially not combined with the fact that, apart from the constant danger of sliding downhill with the rest, indirectly these people are shaking hands (or rubbing shoulders) with those who are in the process of betraying Tradition. The Archbishop and the old SSPX used to tell us we have no obligation to attend such a Mass, on the contrary, we should avoid it. The quote of Fr. Wathen expresses the same idea.

But at the end of all that, it depends on your own circuмstances and on how serious you judge the right or wrong of "shaking hands with those who are in the process of betraying us". There is no hard and fast rule, and therefore there should be no pure and global red light position, only local red lights of varying shades of red..

This is what the SSPX used to say about attending a TLM from the FSSP:

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.

What are we to think of the Fraternity of Saint Peter?

Today the SSPX itself is becoming very much like the FSSP back then, maybe not yet officially but certainly in practice.