CathInfo.com

Well here in Ireland, I know of not one of our faithful who attends the SSPX anymore.

You can argue it is because of the situation here if you want, but the US and France are the only countries where Resistance faithful still think it is ok to attend the SSPX.

The reason for not attending is so simple. Look at St. Hermenegild. He refused the sacraments of a Bishop who was giving totally traditional sacraments. There was only one problem; he was Arian.

So by the same logic, the SSPX, who have put themselves under the authority of Rome for marriage, confessions, and so on, have become part of that modernist apparatus. While the individual priests may not be modernist (as is the case for many indult priests), as a matter of principle, nay more our very faith, we must refuse to receive their sacraments. The same applies for Orthodox priests and receiving their sacraments.

There seems to be a strange combination of human respect, fear of change etc. etc. on the part of priests and faithful for refusing to break with the SSPX. All we are doing is following the example given by the SSPX of old, when it comes to attendance of pseudo traditional Masses.

Hi St. Patrick-

Well, obviously, we see our obligations differently amidst this crisis, and I hope you will not find my comments adversarial, but instead a transcription of my internal monologue when faced with the arguments you raise in favor of the red light position (numbers corresponding to your paragraphs):

1 & 2) Yes, it would be very easy to attend exclusively Resistance chapels if I lived in Ireland, and I would surely do it.  That small country has been blessed with several Resistance priests.  

But in America, we have only 2 Resistance priests with traveling Mass circuits (Bishop Zendejas and Fr. Brocard).  Maybe Fr. Girouard occasionally travels, and possibly also Fr. Ortiz.

Essentially, to abstain from SSPX Masses, I would be committing to raising my six boys and 1 girl without the public practice of the virtue of religion and the regular reception of the sacraments.  This would present a serious threat to their faith (much more so than the passive sermons and).

I would also know I was committing a mortal sin on a weekly bases by refusing to attend a Mass which presents no real danger to me or my family (see below).

In weighing the scales, I see a much greater danger in abstaining than attending.

3) St. Hermingild refused to receive sacrilegious sacraments from an Arian bishop.  But sacraments from the SSPX are not sacrilegious.

4) Yes, it is surely true that to a large extent the SSPX has placed itself under conciliar authority, and opposition to that subjection is the essence of the Resistance (because such subjection invariably leads to contamination with conciliar modernism, of which the SSPX now shows countless symptoms).

But I think it is not true that we must therefore  refuse their sacraments as a matter of principle.

The operating and determinative principle (in this and in all human acts) must always be: Will receiving the sacraments from a falling (or fallen) SSPX hurt or help my chances of salvation?

If I determine it will help -and I do- then I am obligated to follow that course of action, since the contrary decision would imply either unreasonableness, or a disregard for my own salvation.

As an aside, I would disagree that there are non-modernist indult priests (who have not only doubtful orders, but accept Vatican II as traditional, per the hermeneutic of continuity).  As regards Orthidox priests, all their sacraments are sacrilegious, and Catholics would not usually receive grace from receiving them because of the obex gratiae of insincerity.

5) No, there is definitely no human respect behind my refusal to cut ties completely (my posting history, former blog articles, and recently published book should evince that well enough).

Nor is there any fear of change, as evinced by never having missed a local Resistance Mass since they began here 7.5 years ago.

It is the fear of damnation (ie., for the reasons described above) which keeps me in Church on Sunday.  I believe the bar is set very high which dispenses from the Sunday precept, and much spiritual damage resulting were i to make the cut (again described above).

Neither do I think I would be following the example of the old SSPX by cutting with the new: The analogy seems forced to me.  The reasons tge old SSPX gave for staying away from the new Mass or indult do not apply to the neo-SSPX:

Stay away from the new Mass because it is evil and not pleasing to God.  This does not fit an SSPX Mass.  I am sure God is quite upset with the SSPX leaders for allowing it to be captured and diluted, but is He unhappy with their Masses?  I don’t think so.

Also with the indult communities: We stay away from these primarily because of questionable Orders, as well as their OFFICIAL acceptance of conciliar doctrine, whereas the SSPX has (mostly) valid Orders, and only UNOFFICIALLY accepted conciliar doctrine.  The difference between official and unofficial is important, because the former would implicate me (ie., I am presumed to share the official positions of the “congregation” and priests whose Masses I attend), but the latter does not.

And of course, despite the modernization of the Mass postures of the faithful, and the increase of dialogue Masses (in anticipation of the eventual hybrid/1965-ish Mass which the SSPX will accept), the Mass itself is the same today as 20 years ago.

For all these reasons, despite being more aware of the changes in the SSPX than most, they have skillfully avoided providing me with the watershed excuse to cut ties altogether.

You might ask yourself, “What would overcome all these reservations, distinctions, and reasons you adduce for continuing attending SSPX Masses?”

Well, whatever it would be, it would have to be something which tips the scales to make me think attending threatens my salvation more than abstaining.  Therefore, some examples might be:

-A local heresy;

-Moral issues at the chapel;

-The signing of some kind of agreement 
along the lines of the 1984 indult (which said that just by walking through the door, you are agreeing with the doctrinal uprightness of the new Mass);

-An Agreement which implicates my consent to Vatican II.

There are probably others, but these are those which present themselves to my mind firstly.

I hope, again, that this is not received adversarily.  I have been wrong many times when I thought I was right.  Just trying more to explain my position, than overcoming your own.

Hi St. Patrick-

Well, obviously, we see our obligations differently amidst this crisis, and I hope you will not find my comments adversarial, but instead a transcription of my internal monologue when faced with the arguments you raise in favor of the red light position (numbers corresponding to your paragraphs):

1 & 2) Yes, it would be very easy to attend exclusively Resistance chapels if I lived in Ireland, and I would surely do it.  That small country has been blessed with several Resistance priests. 

But in America, we have only 2 Resistance priests with traveling Mass circuits (Bishop Zendejas and Fr. Brocard).  Maybe Fr. Girouard occasionally travels, and possibly also Fr. Ortiz.

Essentially, to abstain from SSPX Masses, I would be committing to raising my six boys and 1 girl without the public practice of the virtue of religion and the regular reception of the sacraments.  This would present a serious threat to their faith (much more so than the passive sermons and).

I would also know I was committing a mortal sin on a weekly bases by refusing to attend a Mass which presents no real danger to me or my family (see below).

In weighing the scales, I see a much greater danger in abstaining than attending.

3) St. Hermingild refused to receive sacrilegious sacraments from an Arian bishop.  But sacraments from the SSPX are not sacrilegious.

4) Yes, it is surely true that to a large extent the SSPX has placed itself under conciliar authority, and opposition to that subjection is the essence of the Resistance (because such subjection invariably leads to contamination with conciliar modernism, of which the SSPX now shows countless symptoms).

But I think it is not true that we must therefore  refuse their sacraments as a matter of principle.

The operating and determinative principle (in this and in all human acts) must always be: Will receiving the sacraments from a falling (or fallen) SSPX hurt or help my chances of salvation?

If I determine it will help -and I do- then I am obligated to follow that course of action, since the contrary decision would imply either unreasonableness, or a disregard for my own salvation.

As an aside, I would disagree that there are non-modernist indult priests (who have not only doubtful orders, but accept Vatican II as traditional, per the hermeneutic of continuity).  As regards Orthidox priests, all their sacraments are sacrilegious, and Catholics would not usually receive grace from receiving them because of the obex gratiae of insincerity.

5) No, there is definitely no human respect behind my refusal to cut ties completely (my posting history, former blog articles, and recently published book should evince that well enough).

Nor is there any fear of change, as evinced by never having missed a local Resistance Mass since they began here 7.5 years ago.

It is the fear of damnation (ie., for the reasons described above) which keeps me in Church on Sunday.  I believe the bar is set very high which dispenses from the Sunday precept, and much spiritual damage resulting were i to make the cut (again described above).

Neither do I think I would be following the example of the old SSPX by cutting with the new: The analogy seems forced to me.  The reasons tge old SSPX gave for staying away from the new Mass or indult do not apply to the neo-SSPX:

Stay away from the new Mass because it is evil and not pleasing to God.  This does not fit an SSPX Mass.  I am sure God is quite upset with the SSPX leaders for allowing it to be captured and diluted, but is He unhappy with their Masses?  I don’t think so.

Also with the indult communities: We stay away from these primarily because of questionable Orders, as well as their OFFICIAL acceptance of conciliar doctrine, whereas the SSPX has (mostly) valid Orders, and only UNOFFICIALLY accepted conciliar doctrine.  The difference between official and unofficial is important, because the former would implicate me (ie., I am presumed to share the official positions of the “congregation” and priests whose Masses I attend), but the latter does not.

And of course, despite the modernization of the Mass postures of the faithful, and the increase of dialogue Masses (in anticipation of the eventual hybrid/1965-ish Mass which the SSPX will accept), the Mass itself is the same today as 20 years ago.

For all these reasons, despite being more aware of the changes in the SSPX than most, they have skillfully avoided providing me with the watershed excuse to cut ties altogether.

You might ask yourself, “What would overcome all these reservations, distinctions, and reasons you adduce for continuing attending SSPX Masses?”

Well, whatever it would be, it would have to be something which tips the scales to make me think attending threatens my salvation more than abstaining.  Therefore, some examples might be:

-A local heresy;

-Moral issues at the chapel;

-The signing of some kind of agreement
along the lines of the 1984 indult (which said that just by walking through the door, you are agreeing with the doctrinal uprightness of the new Mass);

-An Agreement which implicates my consent to Vatican II.

There are probably others, but these are those which present themselves to my mind firstly.

I hope, again, that this is not received adversarily.  I have been wrong many times when I thought I was right.  Just trying more to explain my position, than overcoming your own.

Hi Sean,

When Bishop Tissier used the example of St. Hermenegild it was with a view to convincing people not to go to indult Masses. Presumably, therefore the Arian sacraments were sacrilegious in the sense that they were in union with heresy. The same would apply to the SSPX.

The SSPX is officially part of the conciliar Church. The difference is that you may argue it is SECRET, rather than unofficial. But is it really secret? We have pictures of the weddings done with the conciliar Church and leaked docuмents. It is hard to argue even that.

So all it does, in the end, is lesson the culpability of those attending SSPX Masses. It doesn't lessen the objective gravity.

Finally, on the question of those who have families to consider. In light of what I said above it seems all the more important to protect the innocence of little ones that families abstain. A single adult man or woman may attend and discern the ambiguities in the sermon because they are well formed. However children don't have this filter developed, and it seems a priority that a child not have their mind polluted by modernism, than be adept at sacramental piety.