That the Trad rejection of the Novus Ordo Missae is largely based on "1000 cuts" all of which aim in a certain direction: ignoring doctrines (purgatory) downplaying/removing mention of the Blessed Mother and her perpetual virginity, removing elements from the Mass that emphasize its sacrificial nature, downplaying the unique role of the Priest, etc.

In general, it's lots of sins of OMISSION and really it takes a lot of evidence all added up to render the Novus Ordo as "dangerous to the Faith" as a whole.

But could each change be justified, by an interested party? You bet. With a few exceptions, I bet excuses could be given for all the things that changed in the New Mass.

Does the New Mass have liturgy that says, Priest: "Everyone, let's consecrate!" *everyone does the consecration* Priest: "Thank you, people, for doing the consecration!"
Now THAT would be blatant heresy.

No, they are content to constantly blur the lines between priest and Faithful in a hundred ways, always in the direction of a feminized, Freemasonic philanthropic religion of man. It tends toward heresy.

Where in the Conciliar Church or Novus Ordo Mass does it explicitly state that Christ is not present Body Blood Soul and Divinity in the Host? Yet they have the people receive under both species, which HAPPENS to be more similar to the service at protestant churches. Do they say Christ isn't present? No. BUT they reduce genuflections to almost none, and have the people stand to receive, in the hand, which tends to suggest the people are equal to God.

But we Trads are too smart to fall for this. Wise prelates and laymen have analyzed the New Mass, and found that all the changes leaned the same direction, and so they should be taken as a whole.

Apply this to the SSPX - Resistance debate. Take #1 of the CCCC, for example. Sure, it doesn't prove anything -- but when dozens of other similar moves have been made, all in the same direction -- only a biased or blind person can deny the trend that it outlines: a move towards the position of the FSSP, and a move towards union with Modernist Rome.

FellayOFish...



Best Screen Name so far this year.

Well Fr. Pagliarani called Francis a heretic and has made it clear that the problem is doctrinal. What more do you want?

Good cop/bad cop: It is necessary (within the context of a very politically correct context: Condemning the Muslims) to preserve the illusion of XSPX "resistance."

1) So the "Conciliar Church" is a literal second visible Church, but not a completely distinct visible Church? How exactly does that work out? For the past six years, no Resistance folks have been able to explain what that means. A literal second but not completely distinct Church is definitely a theological novelty, incompatible with what every pre-Conciliar dogmatic theologian says about the nature and unity of Christ's Church.

2) You're presuming I'm just a mainline SSPX-adherent. But I'm not. I used to be a Resistance mass-attendee years ago, and then I grew up. I simply sympathize with the mainline SSPX, attend their masses occasionally, and agree with much of what Abp. Lefebvre did/said, etc. I have no commitment to them. Lefebvre was a holy man, but he was not Christ; likewise, the SSPX is an organization greatly serving the salvation of souls, but it is not the Roman Catholic Church itself.

But you guys are different. I know your type -- I attended a Resistance chapel for three years. You guys say not to attend even mainline SSPX masses, FSSP masses, diocesan trad masses, or Eastern Catholic divine liturgies. You say that the only acceptable masses are Resistance ones, which only feeds into the insinuation that the Resistance basically = the Roman Catholic Church. My point about your divisions/schisms was to point out that you guys cannot be the true Church, since you lack the Ecclesial mark of Unity.

3) Ok, which branch of the Resistance do you follow then, X?

1. The "Conciliar Church" is a real thing. But it's a mystery, like the Crisis in the Church itself, which no man can fully or perfectly explain. Only God knows how it all fits together, and how it's going to be solved. Just like heretics over the ages have done with the Trinity and other supernatural Revelation, trying to simplify THIS mystery so that it fits comfortably inside a human meat-brain is going to be a recipe for error and heresy.

2. This is a straw man argument. No one on CathInfo nor any of the Resistance bishops, nor the priests that work with them, is claiming that "they, together, constitute the whole Catholic Church". Likewise, who ever said +Lefebvre was Christ? That's the most ludicrous straw man I've ever read.

3. What Resistance priest did *you* associate with for 3 years? Was it Fr. Pfeiffer/Hewko? You seem to know the most about them, so that is the most probable. But it's more than that -- your brain's entire data file for "the Resistance" is filled with Pfeifferian rhetoric, propaganda, and theology. Outside Pfeifferville, no Resistance priests teach that they ARE the Catholic Church, that all other groups are automatically off-limits (a.k.a. "Red lighting"), etc. As a matter of fact, most Pfeifferites crucify +Williamson for keeping a wise, balanced, and sane view on this subject!

4. You THINK you know the Resistance, and by extension, a bunch of us here -- but all you REALLY know is the Pfeiffer cult, which accurately reflects the Resistance about as much as Pope Michael accurately reflects the Traditional Catholic movement.

5. All your charges of "divisions", "schisms", etc. are spurious. The Traditional Movement as a whole has always had differing opinions, lack of unity (usually regarding some point touching on the Crisis in the Church, not the Faith itself -- see #1 for the nature of the Crisis). "Strike the Shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered." The Pope is the principle of unity in the Catholic Church. How can a Crisis like this happen -- wherein the Pope himself joins with Her enemies and begins tearing apart the Church with his own hands -- without necessarily costing us our valuable unity? It is sad, but it is not our fault. We are not the ones with new, novel doctrines. Like the Traditional Catholics in the 1970s (including +Lefebvre) WE are the ones who DIDN'T change.

Faithful Catholics don't have the first dent in their otherwise perfection, the first thing to apologize for, just because the mass of Catholics and Churchmen apostatized after Vatican II. It is the latter who are guilty of schisms, division, and breaking the unity of Faith.

Any apparent lack of unity in the Traditional Movement (of which the Resistance is a part) is easily explained by A) the confusion and mystery surrounding the Crisis itself, and B) the novel doctrines and outrageous behavior of the Conciliar Popes, who are supposed to be the principle of unity in the Catholic Church.

Sure, things look pretty chaotic at times in the Traditional Movement, but remember the words of Our Lord:

"Judge not according to appearances, but judge just judgment."

As to 1) There cannot be two visible Churches. Read any pre-Conciliar manuals on Ecclesiology. The confusion resulting from the Church's current crisis cannot justify a border-line heretical Ecclesiology that has no foundation in the Church's tradition.

2) I said that Lefebvre is not Christ, not because I was accusing you guys of thinking that, but to reiterate that I have no theological commitment to agree with Lefebvre/SSPX.

3-4) I never had anything to do with the Pfeiffer-Hewko group. I've never met either of them or gone to any of their masses. The most I ever did was have a phone conversation with Fr. Hewko 3 years ago. But that means nothing, as I've had phone conversations with many priests of all sorts of theological persuasions. I attended St. Athanasius Catholic Church in Vienna, VA. Bp. Williamson, Fr. Ortiz, Fr. Chazal, and the Dominicans of Avrille are pretty much the Resistance clerics I had met/knew/listened to.

Lmao, Matthew. No, I’m not making stuff up. Fr. Ortiz repeatedly told me to not attend any other masses but Resistance ones, and that if I couldn’t make it to one on Sunday, I was excused from attending mass.

I wish the SSPX paid me, but sadly, they do not. These are just my opinions.

Lmao, Matthew. No, I’m not making stuff up. Fr. Ortiz repeatedly told me to not attend any other masses but Resistance ones, and that if I couldn’t make it to one on Sunday, I was excused from attending mass.

I wish the SSPX paid me, but sadly, they do not. These are just my opinions.

I didn't seriously think the SSPX was paying you, but it sure made/makes me wonder.

There are many Resistance supporters who stay home on many Sundays, due to A) lack of weekly Mass and B) their choice to stop attending SSPX at this time. Remember, sometimes you hit the brakes for a yellow light; other times you keep going if the yellow light isn't too "stale". Now if Resistance supporters stay home EVER, they obviously consider it justified, or they wouldn't be doing it!

But you are confusing *personal* advice aimed at you alone with general advice. That's the same mistake the Pfeifferites make with +Williamson (remember the advice he gave the older lady at Mahopac, NY regarding the Novus Ordo? That was for *her alone*, not for anyone else.)

If you were still torn, confused, didn't see the problem in the SSPX, spoke of your dire need of Mass for some family or personal reason, etc. these same priests would be advising you differently.

The collapse of the SSPX is absolute and certain -- but the collapse is not equally evident at all chapels. As they say, "Your mileage may vary."
The SSPX is indeed doomed -- don't get me wrong -- because the compromise and change is coming from the very top of the organization, and the new, FSSP-style thinking affects dozens if not hundreds of members, as opposed to just Bishop Fellay.

By the way, that's another thing I could criticize: your screen name focuses on the man Bishop Fellay. We on CathInfo, and in the mainstream (non-Pfeiffer) Resistance, don't do this. It's not about personalities. It's about DOCTRINE, it's about STAYING TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC and HATING VATICAN II WITH A HOLY HATRED. If Bishop Fellay got hit by a bus, the crisis in the SSPX would *not* be over. Even more so now that he is no longer Superior General!