Replies

So, somehow, the rights of SOME of the FSSP priests were denied because it was made clear that they and others were ALLOWED to say the normative Mass of the Church? Not required, mind you, but merely allowed. Thus, if Fr. Black says a Novus Ordo Mass, he will be harming somehow Fr. Brown who does not say the Novus Ordo Mass so long as both are FSSP priests, right? Assuming that absurdity to somehow be true, does the pope himself transgress Fr. Brown's rights when the pope says the Novus Ordo Mass? What sort of gibberish are you promoting? Do you understand that you cause many bishops, including many of the more conservative bishops, to suspect not merely you and your fellow SSPX schismatics but also Tridentine Catholics in communion with Rome to be suspect of harboring schismatic intent and why the bishops see such suspicions to be reasonable?

I've come to the conclusion you're one of these people for whom evidence is beside the point. You want to be the leader of a club--somebody who decides who's in and who's out. You are impervious to theological argument--you only want to be able to decide who gets to go to Heaven or Hell. Fine. Be my guest. Sing your looney tunes. Nevertheless, I'll give reason one more try--slowly this time.

First, this fantasy about the "normative Mass" needs to go. It's an inaccurate term. There's nothing normative about a Mass that is out of line with the whole of Catholic history. What actually happened was that the New Mass was FOISTED on an unwilling clergy by a Liturgical Gestapo that demanded exclusive use of the new missal. But the Old Mass was never abrogated. If you don't know this, you need to do some more background reading to understand the full implications of this injustice. In any case, the idea that the New Mass is NORMATIVE is a joke. It is a throwback, a variation on a liturgy invented by Martin Luther, complete with a Protestantizing disparagement of the Real Presence and a dumping of the Offertory. The Liturgical Nazis even turned the altar around to face the people, just like good old Martin did.

Second, the Indult letter of JnPII--Ecclesia Dei Adflicta--guaranteed Indult priests exclusive use of the '62 Missal, even carrying with it the admonition this rite was not to be admixed with any other rite. The FSSP Superior General made the bad mistake of believing Rome meant what it had promised, that this Fraternity was to have a unique charism centered on the ancient Latin rite. Instead Rome used the complaints of a few disgruntled subordinates to decapitate the Fraternity and impose its own guy more willing to mix and match--in other words, it staged a coup. Is it any wonder Indult priests are now offering communion in the hand and doing away with kneeling to receive? Give it time, it won't be long before the Agnus Dei gives way to Blowin' in the Wind.

Third, the "harboring of schismatic intent" is a charge I will gladly accept if it means I must choose between the ancient faith and the calamity now passing for Catholicism. I'll take my chances with the Lord and to heck with the rest of the nonsense--including the perverted priests and the sleazy bishops and the corrupted cardinals and the heretical liturgies and the celebrity pope who will tolerate any abomination in the name of Catholicism, yet only remembers the powers of his office when it comes to disciplining those who insist on adhering to the ancient faith. If this is schism, fine, I'll take it.