CathInfo.com

Greetings XM-

Firstly, I wish to thank you for being so candid regarding your bad disposition, lest someone should take this meandering attempt at refutation seriously (i.e, It was in the other thread you refer to, that you announced your intention to refute the whole book, despite never having read it).  Consequently, your position (i.e., that the book is 101 mistakes) is not oriented toward truth, but toward the defense of an organization which you have concluded, a priori, must in all things be correct.

This is undeniable (though I fully expect you to deny it nonetheless).

I do admit to being perplexed by your start:

You hold it against me that I do not discuss my own opinion on whether new Mass attendance is sinful, but I am not sure why: The book has nothing to do with my own opinions (though you should be able to deduce them easily enough, as in all cases they are those of Archbishop Lefebvre and the old SSPX).  

My job as author was simple and straightforward: To compare and contrast the official positions and writings of Archbishop Lefebvre and the old SSPX with the current positions of the SSPX, to docuмent and compile a list of changes, contradictions, or compromises to demonstrate the Society has, in large measure, left Archbishop Lefebvre behind, in pursuit of a canonical accord with unconverted Rome.

Interjecting my own positions into such a work would be impertinent and distracting.

Nevertheless, if you wanted to have an answer, I am happy to discuss elsewhere, if you find it interesting (or to save time, you could simply obtain a copy of the Catechetical Refutation, which you can find for free at various websites).

As for the specifics regarding entry #1 on the changes to Christian Warfare regarding active participation in the new Mass having been excised from the examination of conscience in the 2009 edition, the fact is objective:

Active participation in the NOM appeared in the examination of conscience in the 2006 edition, but not in the 2009 edition.  This is proof that, at least until 2006, the SSPX considered such participation sinful.

Contrary to what you say, therefore, the conclusion that the removal of active NOM participation from the 2009 edition implies that the SSPX no longer wishes to suggest such participation is sinful is far from being a non-sequitur (i.e., a conclusion which does not logically follow from a previous statement or argument), as any reasonable person aware of the change would and should logically conclude precisely that.

You then enter into a lengthy discussion in your various points about the degree of sin NOM participation represents (i.e., mortal vs venial).  I'm not sure why, as that is not an issue I enter into.  I only discuss the fact that the SSPX used to consider NOM attendance sinful, and that the excision of active NOM participation from the new examination of conscience implies that they no longer do.

I am also confused as to why you are throwing +Lefebvre's quote from Apologia at me regarding the possibility of satisfying the Sunday obligation at the NOM.  As you say, I am well familiar with it, but have no idea why you think it relevant here (i.e., In a discussion about whether of not the SSPX no longer considers active participation in the NOM sinful or not).  I think perhaps you have not realized that you have slipped off track, and entered into another subject?

So far as I can tell, it seems you are mistakenly reading me as saying in example #1 that attending a NOM is always a mortal sin.  In doing so, you have either misunderstood one of the shortest entries in the book (which does not fill me with hope that you will understand the lengthier entries), or, what is more likely, you have deliberately attempted to argue a different subject, while pretending it is relevant to the entry you are objecting to (i.e., because of your a priori bad disposition mentioned at the beginning of this post), in order to have something to say.

In other words, your entire response is a straw man.

You might have done better not to have responded at all.

The fact that Fr. Pfluger and Schidberger admit that the SSPX is in an "abnormal canonical status" shows that they accept the legitimacy of the suppression of the SSPX back in the 1970's. The reality is that the SSPX has a normal canonical status, but the Pope and the rest of the world's bishop have unjustly and illegally failed to recognize what is already existing. What they (Father Pfluger and Schidberger ) should say is "the Conciliar Church hierarchy has created a false reality giving the impression to the public that we (the SSPX) are in an abnormal situation but in reality and in truth we  have full canonical approval, whereas they are the ones that have an abnormal canonical status as some of these bishop are in reality schismatics and/or heretics and have a canonical status of former members of the Catholic Church."

No it doesn’t. It’s abnormal solely for the reasons I adduced in my first paragraph; it would may no difference either way (whether they accepted the suppression or not).