My SSPX priest, who has spoken against the resistance in the past, but also believes that there are errors in Vatican II that cannot be interpreted in a traditional way, yesterday he said that the New Mass was not legitimately promulgated (those were not his exact words but that is what his words meant). I am glad that his positions are not modernist on these points.

What a convenient argument used by sedeplenists to have their "pope" and simultaneously be able to ignore him.

I suppose if you have no access to a TLM on Sunday, you're free to stay home, right?

I suppose if you have no access to a TLM on Sunday, you're free to stay home, right?

If I have no TLM, I stay home. Did that for many years till God provided one and will do it again if it comes to that - I pray it never comes to that again.

It doesn't even matter whether or not the NO was ever "legally" promulgated. The heretics have control of the Vatican and the parishes, and human society has turned into a sewer and souls by the millions are tumbling head first into hell. May God have mercy on us all.

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Charlemagne

I suppose if you have no access to a TLM on Sunday, you're free to stay home, right?

If I have no TLM, I stay home. Did that for many years till God provided one and will do it again if it comes to that - I pray it never comes to that again.

So, even though the CCC states that it's a mortal sin to miss Mass for an illegitimate reason, and the NOM is enforced (and celebrated) by a sitting "pope," there's no mortal sin involved by staying home to avoid that NOM? I suppose the CCC wasn't promulgated legitimately, either. I don't care what Fr. Wathen (RIP) stated (and I have much respect for him; The Great Sacrilege is awesome), Catholics obey the pope.

Catholics obey the pope in all things that are not a danger to our souls.

Attending the new mass is a sacrilege so no matter who says otherwise, we are not obligated to go to the NOM, but we are all obligated to avoid it - too bad everyone does not avoid it - it would not exist if no one went.

This should never, never, never be a bone of contention or a point of debate amongst traditional priests. I am not a sedevacantist, far, very far from it. The Church cannot promulgate something injurious to Faith and morals. It certainly cannot promulgate a sacrilegious 'messe batard'.

The inference, no, not the inference, the inescapable conclusion of saying that the Newmass was 'legitimately promulgated' is that, as the Church cannot promulgate something injurious to Faith and morals, then the Newmass is not injurious to faith and morals.

Now this is just not on. I think I said elsewhere that if that were the case, you and I might as well link arms and dance to the nearest Novus Ordo. We would be, as the 'immortal' and thoroughly scandalous docuмent Summorum Pontificuм says, 'attached' to Tradition as 'an extraordinary form' - nothing more than a sentimental preference.

If you accept the Newmass as legitimately promulgated, you swallow the whole Conciliar Revolution whole. The most you can say (forgive me if I bang on on this subject fairly regularly) is that the nice Council Fathers were misinterpreted (ooh!) and that Dignitatis Humanae, Unitatis what-ever-it-is (Reintegratio?) can be 'understood in the light of tradition'! Hermeneutic of Continuity alert! Man the barricades! No Catholic can do that.

Why am I rehashing the simplest of all, the very plank upon which the Archbishop and the whole of Tradition stands, that the Conciliar revolution and all of its damnable reforms cannot be licit, cannot be good, are evil in and as of themselves,  to, as it were, the choir? Only to show that, really, if any 'traditionalist' thinks they are licit (and so morally good), or thinks they can assist at the Newmass, then the plot is well and truly lost.

Charlemagne -  there can be no obligation to assist at an objectively mortal sin of sacrilege. We do not fulfill our obligation at the Newmass. It is a bastard Mass, a sacrilege.

I for one, owing to distance and the cost of petrol, shall have to make do without the Sacraments, I do not know quite how common it is (by the by, I would appreciate any prayers anyone could spare).

I just want to make it clear that I'm not a dogmatic sede. I don't "condemn to hell" those who believe Francis to be the pope (as if I could, anyway). We debate these points because we care and want the truth. God have mercy on us all during the Modernist Crisis.