This just came in.
Is this the "New SSPX Oath"?
I just received this information from two separate mediums. The first by a PM (in which I was waiting for a reply to post it). And a timely second, in a private email from another person who said to let others know about the contents.
Like everything else coming out of Menzingen, this too needs the pieces to be put together...
DECLARATION OF FIDELITY
(To the Positions of the Society of St Pius X)
I, the undersigned, ___________(name)________ recognize Benedict XVI as Pope of the Holy Catholic Church. That is why I am ready to pray in public for him as Sovereign Pontiff. I refuse to follow him when he departs from the Catholic tradition, especially in the questions of religious liberty and ecuмenism, as also in the reforms which are harmful to the Church.
I grant that Masses celebrated according to the new rite are not all invalid. However,
considering the bad translations of the Novus Ordo Missae, its ambiguity favoring its being interpreted in a Protestant sense, and the plurality of ways in which it can be celebrated, I recognize that the danger of invalidity is very great.
I affirm that the new rite of Mass does not, it is true, formulate any heresy in an explicit manner, but that it departs" in a striking manner overall as well as in detail, from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass", and for this reason the new rite is in itself bad.
That is why I shall never celebrate the Holy Mass according to this new rite, even if I am
threatened with ecclesiastical sanctions; and I shall never advise anyone in a positive manner to take an active part in such a Mass.
Finally, I admit as being legitimate the liturgical reform of John XXIII. Hence I take all the liturgical books from it to be Catholic: the Missal, the Breviary, etc.; and I bind myself to make exclusive use of them according to their calendar and rubrics, in particular for the celebration of Mass and for the recitation in common of the Breviary.
In doing this I desire to show the obedience binding me to my superiors, as also the
obedience binding me to the Roman Pontiff in all his legitimate acts.
Signed ________________________
Presuming this new Oath is truly to be exacted of SSPX clergy:
1) It worries me that the possibility of per se invalidity of the NOM, despite acknowledging it to represent "a striking departure of the theology of the Mass as it was defined at Trent," has been absolutely ruled out, and only abuses can now invalidate it.
2) Nowhere in this supposed Oath is there mention of invalidity via defective intention. Does Menzingen not wish to offend its new brethren in Rome? Archbishop Lefebvre said that a defective seminary formation such as is now universal in the Conciliar church could be capable of breeding a new priesthood incapable of minimally "intending to do what the Church does." Strange that mention of this should be omitted, when it would be an even more widespread cause of invalidation than deviation from form.
3) Equally troubling is the requirement to acknowledge the "legitimacy" of the liturgical reforms of John XXIII. Is legitimacy to be synonymous with improvement, good, or necessary? Those who are informed on liturgical history will find this requirement curious, insofar as the Mass continued to be dumbed down under the short pontificate of John XXIII.
4) Most distressing is that this tricky Oath seems to be a trap, locking SSPX clergy into a vow never to return to the richer pre-John XXIII liturgical books (e.g., the pre-1956 Holy Week, and all the Octaves, Vigils, Collects, Post Communion, and Prefaces which were deleted by the time 1962 came around). A return to the fully Catholic, pre-Bugnini liturgical books is effectively pre-empted by this Oath.
5) The final sentence of this Oath says a mouthful: It is a show of obedience, but to what and whom? Tradition, or the hermeneutics of continuity, which would find its synthesis between tradition and modernism in the transitional books of John XXIII? Then the reform of the reform?
6) One final observation: In the early days, ABL permitted a diversity of liturgical books to be used in Econe. Until entering into a conciliatory phase in the early/mid-1980s, in which he came to insist on the 1962 missal, and ruled out the better pre-1955 books, these latter having become associated with a sedevacantist movement which hampered his diplomatic efforts in Rome.
The lesson?
Even a great saint and leader like ABL could make decisions which, objectively speaking, were not the best, simply because he was dealing with the enemies of the Church in Rome.
An argument could be made that they influenced (in a much more limited manner than they are influencing Bishop Fellay!) his decision in this regard.
The more we talk with Rome, the more difficult it is to retain the integral transmission of the Faith.
Oaths such as this are tiny instances, among so many more.
If we would preserve the purity of tradition for the honor of Our Lord, we must stop taking actions which have any regard for the perceptions of the Romans.
When they come back to the Faith, it will not be necessary to negotiate.