Seriously? Is this what we've come to as a Church? Looking for legal loopholes instead of listening to the Spirit? The Spirit brings unity; the Evil One divides.
Thanks for reinventing the Wheel. Basically, everything that you are saying is a recapitulation of the SSPX booklet "Is Tradition Excommunicated" that was first printed in the 1990's, and is a summation of arguments that go back to the 1970's.
But let's get down to the brass tacks.
Personally I detest the "Code of Canon Law" that promulgated in 1917. It was the pretext for a whole army of priestly Ensign Parkers to quote chapter and verse. You could now check that brain at the door and just spout paragraph and section, and intimidate the opposition into silence. They all seem to have forgotten St Paul's admonition that "The Letter of the Law Kills, while the SPirit of the Law gives life", and his whole exposition- I think it was to the Ephesians, might have been the Hebrews, concerning how Justification is not from the Law, and his exhortation that "Against Charity there is no Law".
I dealt with the structures of the Conciliar Church for 15 years, from 1975 to 1990, and I can assure you that no Apparatchik was ever as cynical, hateful of Tradition, and overbearing as these entrenched Diocesan Bureaucrats. The One Unforgivable Sin of the Vatican II Reformed Church was resistance to the Solemn Proclamations- Real or Imagined- of said Council.
It was, of course, largely the code of Canon Law that turned the Institutional Church from the Fatherly, Paternal authority Our Lord Jesus Christ meant it to be into the Soulless, Hateful, and Lying Body of Sycophants and Petty Tyrants. (They did a fairly good job of hiding their improprieties against Holy Purity at that time.)
The Worst Priests back in the day were the "Conservative" ones. I do recall a conversation I had with a older priest from Reading PA in 1991, shortly after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre. And he told me that "well, HE is DEAD now, and we all know where HE is!" implying, of course, that the Archbishop was among the Damned. Now, whatever your position on Archbishop Lefebvre, I am sure all will agree this is certainly a most uncharitable attitude to take towards an immortal soul. Not even The Austrian Painter gets such treatment.
I do wish there were far fewer Traditional Priests like Fr Hesse and more like Fr Paul Wickens, who back in the day had a very tremulous spiritual journey, and admitted to many mistakes as he penetrated deeper and deeper into the muck that is the Conciliar Church.
And I will repeat his admonition here: "RUN!, don't walk, from the Novus Ordo and the Documents of Vatican II, and adhere with your whole heart to the Faith of Our Fathers!"
If you watch Novus Ordo Watch, he makes a cogent point, that is if you RECOGNIZE the Second Vatican Council as legitimate, than if your “pope” Francis makes the 1963 Latin Mass illegal, than to be obedient to your “pope” you have to OBEY! And the Second Vatican Council supporters call Sedevacantists “protestants”…..😂😂😂😂😂😂
No one here mentions even the possibility that we have seen only invalid popes since 1958 or that Holy Orders in the V2 church were invalidated by Paul VI in 1968, the latter explained at
I'm convinced that the prophesied Great Apostasy & "eclipse" of the Church (Our Lady of La Salette) began with the overthrow by means of threat of a validly elected pope in 1958.
Also see Quo Primum, written by Pope St Pius V. I dont think it could be written more forcefully or clearly. In a somewhat ironic twist, the English translation of it on the vatican website for a long time appeared to have been intentionally mistranslated. I am no great latinist but I cannot see how someone couldve made the mistake that they did on accident. Regardless, it is now taken down altogether.
I've wondered and, having attended many private/secret home masses in the past, scrupulously worried about this very question. Perhaps "schism" in such a circumstance has a lot more to do with one's interior disposition and intentions. If I were to attend one of these purely as a political act of act of defiance, there might be a problem, but if I do so to avoid a sacrilegious Mass elsewhere, it's not a problem?
But there is a problem when it's attended for merely ideological reasons, and a similar, but worse problem when these crackdowns, as with what the Bishop of Charlotte, are also conducted for merely ideological reasons.
“Schism” means = breaking from the declared dogma of the Church. So, no, it is not schismatic to attend a Latin Rite Mass. The traditional form has never been abrogated (and cannot, legally, according to Quo Primum). And the Novus Ordo was never formally promulgated. Vatican II was a pastoral council and the new form of the Mass was never officially “canonized”. What they’ve done is strong arm the faithful into doing something which contradicts the Faith, and said (without saying) that it was “mandatory”. It is not.
It is not an act of political defiance to worship the way we always had until the 1960’s. If anything, it is keeping the Faith, whole and intact.
I agree, but there can still be flaws in one's heart that are sometimes a problem, like when one performatively attends a TLM or goes Orthodox or something like that without intending to live it.
Maybe I'm arguing for an impossible standard, but I know that within my heart, in the past, I sometimes attended these secret Masses with something other than charity on my heart and more of an "I'm part of the cool crowd of the rebels" type of attitude. The questions of supply jurisdiction, etc. also bothered me enough that I decided not to attend these until I had the proper attitude, especially because the local bishop angrily found out about one of them and is using the existence of them against some of my friends. As the bishop cracked down on the TLM, many of my friends who did seem to be taking things in charity also went Byzantine, a response which at least gives tradition while also preserving peace with the hierarchy.
What's your liturgical background Avey? I'm interested in what group you attend. Society? I won't say that you are wrong to do what you do necessarily, just that I personally I don't feel like I could make that decision. For now, I'm about to move to a new city that has more options, relatively speaking, at least.
I totally understand what you mean. And if someone doesn’t *love* the Mass, but is only doing it to stick a finger in the eye of their bishop, or the pope, yes — that’s a problem. But it doesn’t make the Mass invalid. It should be confessed, maybe, but the Sacrament is still valid.
I was raised (nominally) Presbyterian, attended a Protestant Pentecostal church for several years, and then converted with my husband to Catholicism shortly after we were married. We discovered the Latin Mass by accident when we moved out of state and couldn’t find a Novus Ordo parish that wasn’t gay. 😄 Our family have been members of the FSSP and the SSPX at different times. But I know people who had Mass at their house, out of the trunk of their car, in the attics of old buildings… I’ve heard a lot of stories.
Yep, completely agreed. The Mass is always valid because it was never abrogated. Licitness is something different where the whole question of jurisdiction and governance versus how serious the crisis is must be considered, but most of the question of personal merit, necessity, or in the bad cases, culpability, is of one's intentions.
I've just had a weird life trajectory in liturgical matters, where I do think I have to be careful of my own motives, and I worry that some other people are in the same boat.
Excellent piece. Thank you.
Beautiful article brother!
The Traditio directory of traditional masses has VERY outdated information, at least regarding North Carolina.
Seriously? Is this what we've come to as a Church? Looking for legal loopholes instead of listening to the Spirit? The Spirit brings unity; the Evil One divides.
Thanks for reinventing the Wheel. Basically, everything that you are saying is a recapitulation of the SSPX booklet "Is Tradition Excommunicated" that was first printed in the 1990's, and is a summation of arguments that go back to the 1970's.
But let's get down to the brass tacks.
Personally I detest the "Code of Canon Law" that promulgated in 1917. It was the pretext for a whole army of priestly Ensign Parkers to quote chapter and verse. You could now check that brain at the door and just spout paragraph and section, and intimidate the opposition into silence. They all seem to have forgotten St Paul's admonition that "The Letter of the Law Kills, while the SPirit of the Law gives life", and his whole exposition- I think it was to the Ephesians, might have been the Hebrews, concerning how Justification is not from the Law, and his exhortation that "Against Charity there is no Law".
I dealt with the structures of the Conciliar Church for 15 years, from 1975 to 1990, and I can assure you that no Apparatchik was ever as cynical, hateful of Tradition, and overbearing as these entrenched Diocesan Bureaucrats. The One Unforgivable Sin of the Vatican II Reformed Church was resistance to the Solemn Proclamations- Real or Imagined- of said Council.
It was, of course, largely the code of Canon Law that turned the Institutional Church from the Fatherly, Paternal authority Our Lord Jesus Christ meant it to be into the Soulless, Hateful, and Lying Body of Sycophants and Petty Tyrants. (They did a fairly good job of hiding their improprieties against Holy Purity at that time.)
The Worst Priests back in the day were the "Conservative" ones. I do recall a conversation I had with a older priest from Reading PA in 1991, shortly after the death of Archbishop Lefebvre. And he told me that "well, HE is DEAD now, and we all know where HE is!" implying, of course, that the Archbishop was among the Damned. Now, whatever your position on Archbishop Lefebvre, I am sure all will agree this is certainly a most uncharitable attitude to take towards an immortal soul. Not even The Austrian Painter gets such treatment.
I do wish there were far fewer Traditional Priests like Fr Hesse and more like Fr Paul Wickens, who back in the day had a very tremulous spiritual journey, and admitted to many mistakes as he penetrated deeper and deeper into the muck that is the Conciliar Church.
And I will repeat his admonition here: "RUN!, don't walk, from the Novus Ordo and the Documents of Vatican II, and adhere with your whole heart to the Faith of Our Fathers!"
If you watch Novus Ordo Watch, he makes a cogent point, that is if you RECOGNIZE the Second Vatican Council as legitimate, than if your “pope” Francis makes the 1963 Latin Mass illegal, than to be obedient to your “pope” you have to OBEY! And the Second Vatican Council supporters call Sedevacantists “protestants”…..😂😂😂😂😂😂
No one here mentions even the possibility that we have seen only invalid popes since 1958 or that Holy Orders in the V2 church were invalidated by Paul VI in 1968, the latter explained at
https://novusordowatch.org/2018/06/unholy-orders-50-years-invalid-ordinations
I'm convinced that the prophesied Great Apostasy & "eclipse" of the Church (Our Lady of La Salette) began with the overthrow by means of threat of a validly elected pope in 1958.
Also see Quo Primum, written by Pope St Pius V. I dont think it could be written more forcefully or clearly. In a somewhat ironic twist, the English translation of it on the vatican website for a long time appeared to have been intentionally mistranslated. I am no great latinist but I cannot see how someone couldve made the mistake that they did on accident. Regardless, it is now taken down altogether.
I've wondered and, having attended many private/secret home masses in the past, scrupulously worried about this very question. Perhaps "schism" in such a circumstance has a lot more to do with one's interior disposition and intentions. If I were to attend one of these purely as a political act of act of defiance, there might be a problem, but if I do so to avoid a sacrilegious Mass elsewhere, it's not a problem?
But there is a problem when it's attended for merely ideological reasons, and a similar, but worse problem when these crackdowns, as with what the Bishop of Charlotte, are also conducted for merely ideological reasons.
“Schism” means = breaking from the declared dogma of the Church. So, no, it is not schismatic to attend a Latin Rite Mass. The traditional form has never been abrogated (and cannot, legally, according to Quo Primum). And the Novus Ordo was never formally promulgated. Vatican II was a pastoral council and the new form of the Mass was never officially “canonized”. What they’ve done is strong arm the faithful into doing something which contradicts the Faith, and said (without saying) that it was “mandatory”. It is not.
It is not an act of political defiance to worship the way we always had until the 1960’s. If anything, it is keeping the Faith, whole and intact.
I agree, but there can still be flaws in one's heart that are sometimes a problem, like when one performatively attends a TLM or goes Orthodox or something like that without intending to live it.
Maybe I'm arguing for an impossible standard, but I know that within my heart, in the past, I sometimes attended these secret Masses with something other than charity on my heart and more of an "I'm part of the cool crowd of the rebels" type of attitude. The questions of supply jurisdiction, etc. also bothered me enough that I decided not to attend these until I had the proper attitude, especially because the local bishop angrily found out about one of them and is using the existence of them against some of my friends. As the bishop cracked down on the TLM, many of my friends who did seem to be taking things in charity also went Byzantine, a response which at least gives tradition while also preserving peace with the hierarchy.
What's your liturgical background Avey? I'm interested in what group you attend. Society? I won't say that you are wrong to do what you do necessarily, just that I personally I don't feel like I could make that decision. For now, I'm about to move to a new city that has more options, relatively speaking, at least.
I totally understand what you mean. And if someone doesn’t *love* the Mass, but is only doing it to stick a finger in the eye of their bishop, or the pope, yes — that’s a problem. But it doesn’t make the Mass invalid. It should be confessed, maybe, but the Sacrament is still valid.
I was raised (nominally) Presbyterian, attended a Protestant Pentecostal church for several years, and then converted with my husband to Catholicism shortly after we were married. We discovered the Latin Mass by accident when we moved out of state and couldn’t find a Novus Ordo parish that wasn’t gay. 😄 Our family have been members of the FSSP and the SSPX at different times. But I know people who had Mass at their house, out of the trunk of their car, in the attics of old buildings… I’ve heard a lot of stories.
Yep, completely agreed. The Mass is always valid because it was never abrogated. Licitness is something different where the whole question of jurisdiction and governance versus how serious the crisis is must be considered, but most of the question of personal merit, necessity, or in the bad cases, culpability, is of one's intentions.
I've just had a weird life trajectory in liturgical matters, where I do think I have to be careful of my own motives, and I worry that some other people are in the same boat.
For one, the intended audience is Diocesan Trads.