I appreciate these replies very much and especially the link to Fr. Wathen's book.  My friend has been a long time supporter of the SSPX and I am concerned about this new attitude that seems to be presenting itself.  This person was also quick to defend Francis as well, suggesting that, specifically, his recent comments regarding ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs were taken out of context.

As I have not attended SSPX in quite some time, I was just curious if they have taken a softer approach to the Novus Ordo Mass and the New Church in general or if this is perhaps something particular to this individual or chapel.

This is a great question and I hope you can find some answers here.

I can't really tell you other than what I have heard from friends.  One
has family in Australia and they say there is a definite change going
on there, that the Faithful do not like to see happening, but some of
the Faithful are becoming, so to speak, less 'faithful' and there is a
split developing between those who are wont to defend the Faith as
they have always known it, and those who are more eager to make
accommodations, or aggiornamento as the canard of Vat.II goes,
with the unclean spirit of Vat.II.

I know others who go locally, which is Colton, Arcadia and Long Beach,
who say they have noticed a few little differences but nothing very
obvious.  So I don't know what to make of that.  They say Fr. Cooper
is a very good pastor.  He was just moved there when Fr. Ward was
sent packing to Chicago, so if he's too "good" of a pastor, they might
find some OTHER reason to move him again!  IMHO he might be
making a few cosmetic changes just so that a few parishioners will
complain, and that way Menzingen can be happy that someone is
discontented - that seems to be their goal lately, to make us miserable.

But your question is regarding their take on the validity of the
NovusOrdo Newmass.  I would expect that the SSPX chapels that are
most accommodating and willing to 'update' would be the ones where
they defend Pope Francis and the various novel practices at the local
parishes.

The things that you see going on at WYD and the so-called papal
masses have been going on in Los Angeles under Cardfile Balony for
decades. He was "buddy-buddy" with Joseph Cardinal Bernardin of
Chicago, whatever that means, so you can pretty much guess what
we've had going on here.  Well, maybe you can't.  But the point is,
under so much extremely bizarre innovations, at some point you
have to wonder if it ceased to be valid long ago.  

I do value your question, CathMomof7, and I hope you can get some
substantive answers from other members.  

Regarding the defense of Pope Francis, this kind of thing has been
going on a long time, beginning with John XXIII and even before that.
The Wanderer followed after the other so-called Catholic papers, as
The Remnant seemed to hold out for a while, then it dropped the ball,
too, now CFN is starting to waver.  It's not too surprising that the
SSPX would begin to sink eventually.  I kind of shudder at the thought
of having to rely on Traditio for news, don't you?  

Someone said they spoke to an SSPX priest who was wont to
defend JPII, saying that when he had said, “The first dimension of this
dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of the Old
Covenant, never revoked by God...,”* that JPII was talking about the
10 Commandments as having been never revoked by God.  But the
words he used were not "the 10 Commandments," but rather "the
Old Covenant."  Since the 10 Commandments were part of the Old
Covenant and were not revoked by God but have been made part of
the New Covenant, that much is fine, but the REST of the Old
Covenant does not automatically get a free ride, therefore.  There are
numerous practices and rules of the Old Dispensation that have been
absolutely revoked, such as eating bitter herbs at the Passover, and
the Sabbath on Saturday, and various dietary rules, and the necessity
for boys to be circuмcised.  St. Paul had a go-around with St. Peter
over that last question.

I'm mentioning this to show the principle of a "half-truth" because
when people try to defend the Newmass, they often times use
half-truths to do so.  Saying, for example, that "the mystery of faith"
has not been removed from the Canon of the Mass, is a half-truth.
Because what they have done with the Newmass is, they took the
phrase "...mystery of faith..." and pulled it out of its context in the
consecration of the wine in the Chalice, and they re-inserted it after
the rest of the chalice consecration words are spoken, so this phrase
in fact "remains" but it has been moved.  That much is bad enough,
but they also changed its meaning, for now, it would no longer apply
to the Precious Blood of Our Lord, but it becomes now a "memorial
acclamation," or a script or outburst from the crowd.  And that is
absolutely removing the meaning from the phrase.  Therefore it is
much more honest to say that "the mystery of faith" has been
removed from the Canon than it is to say that it remains.

In like manner, when JPII said the Old Covenant has never been
revoked by God, it was at best a half-truth, but any half-truth is
a whole lie.  



*Address to the Jєωιѕн Community in Mainz, West Germany, Nov.
17, 1980

If one doesn't already recognize the Novus Ordo Mass as protestant; therefore, false worship, +ABL's words and Father Wathen's book should be enough to keep one from attending it.  Invalidity becomes easily possible due to doubtful intent of the priest, as well as doubtful validity of the new ordination and consecration rites.  How the SSPX considers it merely inferior is beyond me.  It's like saying that the Catholic Church contains the fullness of the Truth, but the various sects have Truth as well:  If there's a little heresy, it's heresy.

I would argue that its very existence is an abuse and that it was "promulgated" by a false claimant to the papacy. The Church will not - CANNOT - give poison to Her children.

"...promulgated by a false claimant to the papacy."  Certainly appears that way, doesn't it?"  

Quote from: Charlemagne

Quote from: eddiearent

If it's valid than there is no reason to attend the TLM. The Church can't give an invalid rite. So either it's holy and a gift from Our Lord Himself or it's a blasphemy from a false religion.

This is the point I was trying to make earlier. If a valid Pope promulgated it, it's valid and one must attend it under pain of mortal sin if no other rite is available. Now, some will argue that there are abuses in the NOM and it must be avoided under such circuмstances. I would argue that its very existence is an abuse and that it was "promulgated" by a false claimant to the papacy. The Church will not - CANNOT - give poison to Her children.

Bingo bingo bingo. This is the crux of the entire matter right here. The official and legitimate Church cannot give us error and it cannot give us evil. And yet, trads today engulf themselves in this fight for the faith with the concrete conviction of resisting almost everything the modernist hierarchy stands for, teaches and promulgates. Yet somehow they're able to twist it around in their heads to believe that somehow they [the modernist heretic claimants to the see of Peter] are still Catholic and the legitimate authority and they're able to disobey them, not based upon personal commandments individually given to them that are objectively evil[/u] but upon universal disciplinary laws which are acts of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium - the legitimate authority of the Roman Catholic Church which has a right to set forth and a right with which to bind them and to which they must submit.

Trads toss around words like "modernist" but never equate "modernist" with "heretic," and if they do use the word "heretic," it means nothing except a nasty sounding label.

For those who wish to look deeper into this, start here.

This is very profound on many levels.