The Neo-SSPX priest should give the Diocesan priest a ring each week (they're practically Best Friends on speed dial) and ask for a copy of their Sermon. It's all part of ecuмenism.

This morning before Mass, I gave my family a short sermon before departing to the church.

I explained to them what they likely would not hear at the chapel today on this great feast:

That the primary evil of Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae was that it directly opposed the Kingship of Christ, and laid the axe to the root of Catholic civilization.  I gave an historical lesson of the Vatican Secretary of State traveling the world to destroy the last remaining confessional states who still officially recognized the Catholic religion as the religion of the state, and ordered their laws and societies upon that basis, in orde to bring these societies into line with the new and condemned doctrine of Dignitatis Humanae (e.g., in the Syllabus, #15, 77-79).  I explained that the Masonic concept of "religious freedom" uncrowned Christ the King (as +Lefebvre had said), and how Christ can never be King in countries where religious liberty is not merely tolerated when Catholics are in the minority, but which is instead touted as the ideal.

I then explained that 20 years ago, sermons combatting the evil influence of Dignitatis Humanae as antithetical to the Kingship of Christ were routinely combatted in SSPX chapels, but that now, especially for the last 10-15 years, the Society had embarked upon a policy of coexistence (en reoute to integration) with modernist Rome, and that the price the SSPX (and its faithful) paid for choosing that path was silence on the subject of religious liberty, since their goal or reintegration into the conciliar church presupposes acceptance of the conciliar teachings (at least in the long run).

Therefore, I told them they would likely receive, as every year, a great sermon on some aspects of the Kingship of Christ: The need for Christ to be king of our souls, of our families, and even of our societies, but omitting to explain why the conciliar church rejects this last aspect of Christ's Kingship.

Consequently, I told them that they'd likely hear something like this OTHERWISE excellent 2014 sermon by Fr. Daniel Themann, who, at 11:19, explains that he is deliberately and intentionally omitting to discuss the 6th point of Pope St. Pius X's 6-part program to institute the reign of the Kingship of Christ the King, stating:

"We could talk about St. Pius X's particular condemnation of certain laws which brought about the separation of Church and state, for example in Portugal, and in France, but I'm going to intentionally pass over that for the sake of time, and also because these interventions of St. Pius X were more the response to particular crimes of these nations, ratheer than integral elements of his program as such."
https://florida.sspx.org/en/media/audio/st-pius-x-and-christ-king-5333

So, in 36 minutes, there supposedly just wasn't time to mention the errors of religious liberty, Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae, or how both are antithetical to the Kingship of Christ (even though such used to be commonplace on this feast every year).  Nor has there been time in practically any other sermon, conference, speech, or article from the SSPX ever since the commencement of the branding campaign, by which the SSPX agreed to lay down its weapons at the feet of the conciliar church.

In truth, Fr. Themann could simply have stated that, "To enter into discussion regarding the separation of Church and state would unavoidably place the discussion upon a collision trajectory with Dignitatis Humanae, and I can't go there."  Of course, he can't just say that, for the ccompromise would be exposed.  Therefore, contrive other reasons for omitting the discussion.

Today, I can look around the chapel, and recognize many faces who used to hear such sermons, and marvel at their blithe acceptance of this new situation (i.e., a surrendered army, for whom Vatican II's religious liberty is no longer in their crosshairs).  And then I marvel again at the new generation of SSPXers who never knew the pre-2010 SSPX: Would they have come had Rome not removed the legal obstacles in exchange for the SSPX's good behavior?  Do they know anything at all about Dignitatis Humanae, and how it opposes the reign of Christ the King?  Have they ever read Archbishop Lefebvre's polemical works (e.g., They Have Uncrowned Him, or I Accuse the Council)?

They have been drawn to a remade and softer Society.  It is debatable whether they would have been drawn to the old Society.  But what is not debatable is that they are not being innoculated against the conciliar errors, and expecially not against religious liberty and Vatican II (at least not from the pulpit).

Hence my little sermon, to supply for an anticipated annual omission.

Oh goodness. The things people who STILL go to the SSPX after 11 years of the resistance "have" to do to keep their faith.


I honestly don't know how you call yourself Catholic Sean.

So the hearing of a good and proper sermon at Mass is more important the receiving the sacrament of Holy Communion? See....traditional Catholics hardly ever talk about the graces that we very much need from the reception of the sacrament of Holy Communion. It's not much different than how the Novus Ordo folks view the sacrament of Holy Communion. They tend to believe that it is the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, but that it isn't a big deal at all. I get the impression that trads think the same. The source and summit of our life is not Holy Communion, but rather it is a good sermon that will save us, right?

Why don't YOU start a thread on the Blessed Sacrament Meg?
No one here suggested what you are saying that Holy Communion is of secondary importance.
But you certainly are attacking Sean for fighting on the doctrinal level. You are effectively saying that it is not important. Yet it is precisely on this level that we are engaged in a titanic fight for the Faith. That is the whole drama of Modernism and Vatican II and the post-conciliar religion that the neo-SSPX is tending towards since its official compromise with the 2012 General Chapter. And that is the whole drama of the Resistance. It is a fight at the doctrinal level.
You are falling into exactly the same trap as the neo-SSPX. Don't worry about doctrine, let's just all be saints! I'm a lover, not a fighter! Fr Le Roux vs Bishop Williamson. "Rome has asked that we criticise less and I agree" said Bishop Fellay. That is what the enemy wants. Let the shepherd just graze the sheep and leave the wolf alone!
If you don't stand up and fight for the Faith as the soldier of Christ the King that you are, particularly through the sacrament of Confirmation, then you will have no Blessed Sacrament. You will find yourself in Huonderland with doubtful sacraments and worse. You will be like the elderly sacristan who took me on a tour of his large country church back in the early 90s, and as he passed the tabernacle he indicated without even a genuflection, "there's the bread box".
"It's not much different than how the Novus Ordo folks view the sacrament of Holy Communion". What planet are you on?

Why don't YOU start a thread on the Blessed Sacrament Meg?
No one here suggested what you are saying that Holy Communion is of secondary importance.
But you certainly are attacking Sean for fighting on the doctrinal level. You are effectively saying that it is not important. Yet it is precisely on this level that we are engaged in a titanic fight for the Faith. That is the whole drama of Modernism and Vatican II and the post-conciliar religion that the neo-SSPX is tending towards since its official compromise with the 2012 General Chapter. And that is the whole drama of the Resistance. It is a fight at the doctrinal level.
You are falling into exactly the same trap as the neo-SSPX. Don't worry about doctrine, let's just all be saints! I'm a lover, not a fighter! Fr Le Roux vs Bishop Williamson. "Rome has asked that we criticise less and I agree" said Bishop Fellay. That is what the enemy wants. Let the shepherd just graze the sheep and leave the wolf alone!
If you don't stand up and fight for the Faith as the soldier of Christ the King that you are, particularly through the sacrament of Confirmation, then you will have no Blessed Sacrament. You will find yourself in Huonderland with doubtful sacraments and worse. You will be like the elderly sacristan who took me on a tour of his large country church back in the early 90s, and as he passed the tabernacle he indicated without even a genuflection, "there's the bread box".
"It's not much different than how the Novus Ordo folks view the sacrament of Holy Communion". What planet are you on?

Excellent post!

I remember the story told by Fr. Coughlin, how, when America entered World War I, the congress voted on the eve of Good Friday.  One congressman got up and reminded Congress that Christ was about to begin his passion, and America was about to begin its passion too should they vote for war.  Every government should recognize Christ as King.

I have never been one to promote the theory that we should change American the government into a kingship.  That is foolishness, and Orestes Brownson in one of his articles wrote that the Church enjoyed more freedom in America than anywhere in the world. I know that some priests and laity promote this idea, but I do not agree.  The American form of government as the framers envisioned it is brilliant, but obviously America has drifted far from the original intent of the framers. 

It does seem according to the Catholic prophecies that there will rise up a Catholic king, a great war, etc.  Those of us who live in these days have never witnessed a "Catholic" king of note, nor a "Catholic" pope.  We might see both realities before all is said and done with.

America is coming up on its 250th anniversary, in 2026, and we might see the fall of the country.  America, because we are armed, is the only thing which stands in the way of communism.  Should America topple, the game is up, and the communists know it. 

I have said here many times how it's deplorable that the neo-SSPX doesn't talk about the Council, or the Crisis, Modernism, the problems with Francis, or the state of necessity which means that we cannot attend the new mass. I'm well aware of the deficiencies of the neo-SSPX. And you haven't rally paid very good attention to what I've written, but that's okay. I'll phrase it another way.

You mention above that the enemy wants that we (or rather the SSPX) do not criticize Rome. I agree. But what the enemy wants even more is that we just stay home and not receive the sacraments, for the reason that we might not hear a good and proper sermon. Not that you have said that it's better to stay home, but that's seems the logical consequence of believing that it is a danger to your faith to not hear a good sermon - and that seems to be the next step - staying home. Does this make sense at all? That's what I'm getting at. It's just my opinion. No one is required to follow it.

Yes, that makes sense Meg. I understand exactly where you are coming from and I share your concerns. There is a legitimate concern, however, that attending neo-SSPX Masses may lead many back into Conciliarism. What is the greater danger for any given individual or family? It is a difficult question. Many a Resistance priest will advise you to stay right away from the SSPX even if there is no Resistance Mass. Perhaps this is the right advice for many. For me it is certainly the wrong advice, and I would be guilty of mortal sin if I did such a thing. It is a case of knowing yourself as Bishop Williamson says.

even if there are deficiencies (and we know that there are) in what the SSPX teaches nowadays, we can make up for it by a lot of prayer and study of our dear Catholic Faith.

True Meg. And I would add that if we have a family that we are taking to these Masses, we should learn from what Sean is doing as described in the OP. It is absolutely essential that the father educates his family about the crisis in the Church and discusses the Sunday sermon with his children and puts it in the context of that crisis. That is the way to raise soldiers of Christ Our King and protect them against the dangers to their faith.