Replies

Dear narses,

I'm being quite logical. The website in question is the official website of the United States headquarters of the SSPX. Here is what is noted at the bottom of the first page:

"This site is designed and maintained by the SSPX United States District Headquarters"

I remember how many folks here yelled and screamed about the report of the subcommittee to the committee that was put up on the USCCB website, a group truly without fixed authority. It wasn't in anyway put forward as official policy of the Universal Church, or even of American bishops. Just the musings of a bunch of mediocre theologians with sinecures. The FAQs on the SSPX website are presented as THE answers to critical questions, and the link to them is PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED on the home page.

But to compare further, when folks were upset about the minor link on the USCCB site, THEY TOOK THE ARTICLE DOWN!

Furthermore, this answer to question 10 was not written in 1993. It may draw from an article written in 1993, but the question and answer may be of later vintage. It is doubtful that question 10 and its answer were put on this website in 1993, as the website likely did not exist in 1993. Very few folks had websites, comparatively speaking, in 1993. So, this FAQ, with this offensive Q & A, was put together sometime WELL AFTER 1993.

Then, Question 5, which states in no uncertain terms that no one may attend the Mass of Pope Paul VI was written after 1997, since it quotes primary source material from 1997. Question 15 refers to a 1998 publication. Several other questions refer to publications in the mid-1990s. So, we are talking about a part of the official website of the SSPX in the US that has been updated at least through the late 1990s. And of course, in other parts of the website, there are even later updates. It is disingenuous to claim that this material is an old, forgotten sideshow.

The fact that it has been left there is not an indication that it is forgotten. No, such a prominent internal hyperlink is not left on a website because it is forgotten, but rather because it still is the official policy of the organization sponsoring the website.

If the USCCB had left up the article to which you took objection, AND MADE A PROMINENT LINK TO IT, would you now be saying that the passage of time was proof THEY DIDN'T MEAN IT ANYMORE? That's idiotic.

But aside from that, let's return again to your ill-thought comparison with Rev. Weakland. If Rev. Weakland has denounced the Tridentine Rite in terms equally horrifying as the SSPX has at this website denounced even the indult Mass of the Roman Catholic Church, I am unaware of it.

Read what was written. Catholics are not to attend even the INDULT Mass because:

It is said by a priest who celebrates the Novus Ordo Missae on other days of the week or at other times;

It may be using Hosts consecrated at a Novus Ordo Missae.

These are outrages, blasphemy against Jesus Christ. The author of these is a blaspheming heretic.

Has Rev. Weakland suggested that no one may legitimately attend the Tridentine Rite? Has he said no one may attend a Mass said by a priest who sometimes says the Tridentine Rite? Has he denounced the Sacrament confected at the Tridentine Rite Mass? No? Then you have no argument, no standing for complaint, if you do not denounce the SSPX for these outrages against God.

But even if Rev. Weakland had, indeed, said these things, the pope has said otherwise. I know it is difficult for the schismatic mind to understand this, but if a bishop says "A", and the pope says "not-A", then it is "not-A" that is true, and we are to ignore "A".

And we know that our Holy Father has said only good things about the old rite. This effectively nullifies any competing opinions spewing forth from the mouths of deposed archbishops.

Now, if you can show me where Mr. Fellay, the leader of this pack, has denounced what is said at the website, again, you have the makings of an argument. If you can show me where he has specifically said that the Indult is a wonderful thing, that it helps further his own common goals with the Vicar of Christ, that it is a worthy Mass for SSPX to avail themselves of (all these things are similar to remarks made by the Supreme Pontiff about the Tridentine Mass), that it is perfectly wonderful that the hosts used at an Indult Mass may have come from a Mass of Pope Paul VI, then you have an argument.

Until such time, it is you who have lost the use of the faculty of logic.

That the pope deigns to even talk to these people while they insult him and the Catholic Church in this manner is a testament to his patience, indulgence, and mercy.

sitetest

There is nothing wrong with what the website says. To sum it up, it says attendance at the Novus Ordo is dangerous to the faith, which is true. It does not say the Mass is invalid which would be false. And everything depends on the understanding of the faithful themselves as to what's actually going on--on their interior motives. After all, most attend the Novus Ordo out of obedience, which is not culpable.

Rembember, the SSPX is addressing highly informed Catholics for the most part who have returned to the old rite out of dismay with the new. Their awareness of Catholic theology is often a good deal more acute than that of the average Catholic who obediently attends a Novus Ordo in order to fulfill his/her Sunday obligation. Most of these average churchgoers have no consciousness of the enormity of the theological implications of the new Mass nor that they are, in fact, gradually being protestantized by such attendance. They want comfort and quickness for the most part, with a minimum of fuss.

Those who attend the SSPX have a different awareness and thus would be culpable if they attended a Novus Ordo knowing what they know. However, exceptions to this are, in fact, made and are officially approved. For instance attendance at the Novus Ordo for weddings and funerals in order to keep peace in one's family. This is a routine practice with most traditionalists and a matter of prudence and common sense.

Many parish and diocese websites have been posted here with heterodox and even ehertical claims made, that doesn't make the Church itself heretical. You may choose to believe what you will, but the fact remains that attending Mass at some places, even when valid, may be dangerous. That is certainly what you yourself have said about attending SSPX services. Twenty years ago I saw services that would take your breath away. That was when the "Spirit of Vatican II" and expirimentation was reigning strong. I recall a "Mass" where local Protestants and Rabbis where called in to "assist", for example. A "guitar" Mass that included items in addition to Bread and Wine to be Blessed and distributed so casually that ANY orthodox Catholic would get up and leave, and many did. Your "logic" fails because it is based on the false postulate that "FAQ"'s on a website represent "official" teachings of an organization. As for their "removal", I will certainly as that they be removed, I suspect others here will too. I am not a member of the SSPX but I have corresponded with them many times and always received rational answers, so perhaps these FAQ's come down.