More and more, I'm hearing some extreme SSPXers claim going to the New Mass and receiving Our Eucharistic Lord Jesus Christ there in Holy Communion is allegedly a sin? Anyone else hearing the same? Is this not the greatest of absurdities, to say that receiving Jesus Christ's Precious Blood into your soul, which washes away your venial sins, is itself supposedly a sin, either a "venial sin" supposedly or, what is more intolerable still, a "mortal sin", as Fr. Wathen claimed? So I did some research, gathered some sources and wrote the below. I know that most Indult traditionalist Catholics (e.g. FSSP Priests like Fr. Ripperger formerly was; cited in the article) as well as most diocesan Catholics who attend diocesan TLMS totally reject such a false (and indeed schismatic) position. [It is schismatic because the definition of schism entails 2 things: (1) refusing subjection to the Pope (2) refusing communion with other Catholics subject to the Pope. It does (2) almost literally to the letter. It also practically does (1) also] This Heresy is contrary to the Holiness and Indefectibility of the Church, and condemned by Pope Pius VI. As Van Noort explains, all Pre-Vatican II Catholic Theologians also rejected it, based on multiple sources including the Council of Trent. Fr. Ripperger's position, also that of the FSSP and the original position of Archbishop Lefebvre himself, that the TLM is objectively superior and preferred by Heaven, but NOM is Valid and Grace-Giving, can be theologically proven, from the Magisterium and from Theologians, to be the Truth of Tradition. Pls share your thoughts and pls share the article with others, who might hold that error, if you agree with it. God Bless. https://reasonstobechristian.com/f/major-mistake-sspx-is-making-which-“encourages-atheism-per-abl " Major Mistake SSPX is making (which “encourages Atheism" per ABL) 9 June 2023|10. Holy Communion, 7. The Magnificent TLM, 9. Sede-Vacantism. [Editor’s Note: I wrote this article after seeing some SSPXers claim going to the NOM is a sin. It isn’t, as we will shortly demonstrate]. The Major Mistake the SSPX is making – (which “encourages Atheism” per Lefebvre) In the course of 50 years, the SSPX has done much good. I’ve defended them before. But in the wake of increasing extremism of saying that the Ordinary Form (or New Mass) is like a “Black Mass” and must be avoided in all circumstances, do you know that some, including SSPX Priests and Laity, are promoting a heretical opinion (contradicts the Council of Trent) that, even according to Archbishop Lefebvre himself, “encourages Atheism”. Hardline rad-trads encouraging Atheism? Yes. Read it below: “Should all the world’s churches be emptied? I do not feel brave enough to say such a thing. I don’t want to encourage atheism."[10.]” Here, Archbishop Lefebvre [+ABL] precisely expresses the Truth that telling Roman Catholics to empty all Diocesan Churches encourages only Atheism. A 2nd time: “if one does not have the choice and if the priest celebrating Mass according to the Novus Ordo is faithful and worthy, one should not abstain from going to Mass.”[44]” Beautiful and brilliantly said, Archbishop Lefebvre. This expresses precisely the Indult Traditionalist teaching (which Fr. Chad Ripperger has admirably explained here) and which this author holds. [whether Archbishop Lefebvre changed his position later on or not is a matter of dispute, but it is ultimately irrelevant. If he did, this original position was correct, and the later one, an extremist error. As we will see next, Pope Ven. Pius XII, Pope Pius VI, Van Noort and all Pre-Vatican II Catholic Theologians, and the Council of Trent also, all teach this. On 9 May 1980, +ABL still told Michael Davies: “Those who feel themselves obliged in conscience to assist at the New Mass on Sunday can fulfil their Sunday obligation.” And on 5 May 1988, after the “Promise always to be faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, its Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ .. we declare that we recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.” +ABL wavered a little, but clearly rejected what more extreme “trads” like Fr. Lauriers and Fr. James Wathen held, as we move on to next] Theological Proof: He who says the Church can give evil makes Her a Monster, not a Mother: Proof I: From Pre-Vatican II Theology: “The principle, set forth in classic dogmatic theology texts such as Salaverri, Zubizarreta, Herrmann, Schultes and Iragui (see Appendix 2), is explained as follows by Van Noort: “The Church’s infallibility extends to….ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living….But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above – and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls…. If the Church should make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer either be a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. It would not be a guardian of revealed doctrine, for the imposition of a vicious law would be, for all practical purposes, tantamount to an erroneous definition of doctrine; everyone would naturally conclude that what the Church commanded squared with sound doctrine. It would not be a teacher of the Christian way of life, for by its laws it would induce corruption into the practice of religious life.[Dogmatic Theology. 2:91] Catholic Theologians produced many Magisterial sources as Proof, including: (1) The Council of Trent (Sess 22, Can.7), (2) Pope Pius VI [Auctorum Fidei] and (3) Pope Pope Ven. Pius XII (Mystici Corporis Christi, p. 66) among other sources. “the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,—false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.” The heresy we are combating this article is condemned/censured by the Church. It is false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Holy Spirit of God who guides Her in every age. Who originated this heresy and what should we call it? The Answer: Fr. Wathen, so it is Wathenism or the Wathenite Heresy, as we call Arianism after Arius and Lutheranism after Luther: This false position - that the New Mass is evil or sacrilegious - was invented by a schismatic “trad” priest called Wathen. It is itself evil and sacrilegious and denies the Church’s Indefectibility. This misguided priest, heretical and schismatic, a false teacher who tried to take souls away from the Eucharistic Lord, and thus from the Catholic Faith and Catholic Unity, shamefully claimed this: “I say that any priest who has accepted the new-fangled "mass" is an idolater, a fraud, and a coward, and I challenge him to meet me in verbal combat and to try to prove me wrong … 1. The "new Mass" is no Mass at all. It is rather a deceitful and perverse Mimicry of the True Mass. It is therefore a most horrible Sacrilege, the malicious Hoax of the anti-Christian Revolution. 4. Regardless of the question of the legality of the "New Mass" or of its validity, every priest who has abandoned the True Mass and accepted it, and the anti-religion to which it gives witness, has violated his priestly Oath; he is therefore in the state of sin, whether he admits it or not. Each time he goes to the Table to perform his new "rites" he commits two more sins, one of sacrilege and another of perjury. 5. Attendance at the "New Mass" on the part of lay people is a mortal sin; it is participation in an act of idolatry” (Fr. James Wathen, “The Great Sacrilege”: Father’s Challenge, Ch. 7).
Refuting Fr. Wathen and his schismatic followers, henceforth Wathenites: Accusation I and its Refutation: Idolatry? Hardly. An idiotic and pathetic accusation. The New Mass is not “idolatry” because it is worship of the True God, the Holy Trinity. Any schismatic idiot who calls the New Mass “idolatry” is calling the Holy Trinity a false God, and is therefore himself an idolater, beside being the founder of a dangerous new sect, as Fr. Wathen undoubtedly was. Much of the trad world (including some SSPX Priests), unfortunately, have abandoned the prudent position of +ABL articulated above and groaned to find itself Wathenite... Here is alleged “idolatry” in Eucharistic Prayer IV: “It is truly right to give you thanks, truly just to give you glory, Father, most holy, for you are the One God living and true, existing before all ages and abiding for all eternity, dwelling in unapproachable light; yet you, who alone are good, the source of life, have made all that is, so that you might fill your creatures with blessings and bring joy to many of them by the glory of your light. And so, in your presence are countless hosts of Angels, who serve you day and night and, gazing upon the glory of your face, glorify you without ceasing. With them we, too, confess your name in exultation, giving voice to every creature under heaven as we acclaim:” This is worship of the True God, the Eternal Father... And here is EP III which underlines the same point: “You are indeed Holy, O Lord, and all you have created rightly gives you praise, for through your Son our Lord Jesus Christ, by the power and working of the Holy Spirit, you give life to all things and make them holy, and you never cease to gather a people to yourself, so that from the rising of the sun to its setting a pure sacrifice may be offered to your name.” Once more, a person who calls worship of Jesus Christ “idolatry” is himself an idolater. Also note the reference to Mal 1:11, a Biblical Proof of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. It also refutes the lies of those who say the New Mass contains no reference to the Holy Sacrifice ... Source: “There is an estimated (at least) 350,000 Catholic Masses celebrated every day on planet Earth. It is celebrated in every nook and cranny on the planet, by every race and nationality, and using every language. And each of these Masses is celebrated (generally) using the same scripture readings and the same prayers. Every single one of these 350,000 Masses is actually doing exactly what Jesus said to do in scripture (Luke 22:19, 1 Cor 11:23-29) when he said “Do this in memory of me.” Catholics live that out as a Church over 350,000 times a day. That means there are 4 priests saying those precise words, “Do this in memory of me,” every single second of every single day.” Fr. Wathen, you deluded schismatic, thank God the Catholic Church continues, despite your shameless and rotten efforts to destroy Her. You have perished, but She endures. Admittedly, She is suffering greatly, and in the midst of the greatest crisis Christendom has ever known. But you did not help Her in the slightest with your abominable heresy, rather you kicked your Mother when She was down, and lied to Her children that it is a sin to receive the Lord’s Body and Precious Blood [which in fact washes away venial sins, and is not a “mortal sin” to receive, as will be proven from the the teaching of Trent]. Wathen’s silly 2nd Accusation: the New Mass may be valid, but even so, a valid Eucharistic Sacrifice, celebrated in the Catholic Church, can supposedly be evil. Where did you get such lies from, Fr. Wathen? From the devil, your father in heresy? This heresy stands sufficiently refuted by Pope Pius XII, Van Noort and the Council of Trent. They did not say, “The Church (the Pope and Bishops) can give and use evil Sacramental rites, provided only that these are valid”. No, they said the Church cannot give evil, period. And that includes, “evil, valid Masses”. In fact a valid Mass celebrated in the Catholic Church is not evil but a Great Good. When Fr. Wathen calls it evil, he ultimately calls the Sacrifice of Calvary evil, for the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacrifice of Calvary are one and the same. The Priests and faithful who minister with devotion are like Saint John and Mother Mary and receive great grace/merit for doing so. Those who sin during the Mass by irreverence or by abuses sin like the Pharisees, but that is their own fault, not Mother Church’s. He who says the Church gave evil sins like the one who says Mary is evil. The Church, like Mary, a loving/Immaculate Mother, absolutely cannot. The sedes, btw, know and say this, and they conclude from Wathenism that the Mainstream Church is not the Church. That’s also why the same sedes encourage misguided non-sede trads to hold to Wathenism, since they know better than anyone that the schismatic sedevacantist conclusion is embedded in the Wathenite premise. Wathenites themselves may not know this, but sedes do. 3rd Heresy: Receiving Holy Communion at NOM not “mortal sin”, but “at least a venial sin” [notice how this pathetic formulation also leaves the way open for the full blown Wathenite Heresy]: (Fr. Scott’s Heresy) Fr. Peter Scott, SSPX, an apparently more “moderate” (but not Indult) “trad” Priest, holds what could be called neo-or-semi-Wathenism, namely that receiving Holy Communion, one of the greatest of all good works, in the New Mass is allegedly “at least a venial sin”. Why do you call good evil, Fr. Scott? Let’s quote the misguided priest: “To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin. It is opportunism. Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available. [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]” Pathetic Rubbish. While Wathen himself was in mortal sin for his heresy, I’d like to believe Fr. Peter Scott, not in full visible communion with the Church, is only in venial sin for his error. Nevertheless, it’s a very serious sin on his Part, which gravely offends Our Eucharistic Lord Jesus Christ. Let us consult the Catechism (of Trent): “It cannot be doubted that by the Eucharist are remitted and pardoned lighter sins, commonly called venial.” I mentioned this in a 1P5 article on Daily/Frequent Communion here: A Catholic reader told me, that Holy Communion remits venial sins, “was one of the best kept secrets in Catholicism”. He did not know it. Notice that Fr. Scott, apart from foolishly calling a good work a venial sin, also does not seem to know that Holy Communion, when received devoutly by a Catholic in the State of Grace, not only increases the State of Grace but also necessarily remits venial sins, as Saint Thomas also teaches. Fr. Scott’s absurd opinion that it is a venial sin, while also contrary to the Holiness and Indefectibility of the Church (as per the sources given earlier; the Church cannot give evil, even “venial” evil) is thus also defeated like this: even if it were a venial sin, misguided Priest, the Holy Communion itself would in fact remit that and all other venial sins!
Holy Communion in the NOM is not a venial sin and he who obstinately insists on claiming it is will have to face Divine Judgment and perhaps hear the Lord say something like this: “I taught in My Gospel that he who does not eat My Flesh and drink My Blood has no good hope of Eternal Life. How dare you confuse My 1.3 BN faithful by teaching them it is a sin to receive Me in Holy Communion? Why did you hate Me so much, as to deprive them of the fruits of My Eucharistic Body and Blood?”. How can a Society of 700 Priests deprive 1.3 BN Catholics of Holy Communion by such extremism? 700 Priests can minister at most to 700,000 to maybe 1.4-1.5 MN Catholics, assuming 1-2000 Catholics per Priest. No, Diocesan TLMs are the Solution. As is the SSPX formally renouncing Fr.Scott’s error, and becoming Indult Traditionalist. I commend the SSPX for offering the TLM, but not for saying the NOM is sinful. And I know there are literally 100s of Millions of Catholics, now discovering the TLM, who hold the same position, which the FSSP also has always most faithfully preserved. Fr. Ripperger, formerly with them, is correct, but Fr. Scott mistaken. Fr. Scott also departs from the earlier position of Archbishop Lefebvre, and “encourages Atheism” according to that statement of +ABL himself. To say one must not go to Mass encourages Atheism. And in reality, telling others not to go to Mass, even the NOM on Sunday, is an objective mortal sin. The reason is that it violates the Sunday obligation, which binds all Catholics unless Bishops dispense ... The Eucharist Miracle in Argentina from Dowym:“This was evidenced by intact white blood cells being found in the tissue. This showed the heart sample was pulsating as elsewise the white blood cells would have disintegrated roughly 15 minutes outside of a living body. Interesting fact: The Archbishop who commissioned the research was none other than the now Pope Francis!” Most TLM-attending Catholics I know, including even some who go to SSPX Priests for TLMs also, reject the false opinion that somehow Catholics receiving Holy Communion at the NOM "sin" while doing so. Yet, sadly, an increasing number seem to be believing this old Wathenite error. Thoughts and experiences from others? Do you know anyone telling you or telling others it's allegedly a sin to go to the OF/NOM Mass? I also saw some writers like Kennedy Hall telling Catholics to stay away completely from the NOM, even if they have no other Mass. Totally disagree with that. Thoughts? God Bless.
But I think that you oversimplify, Xavier. You quoted Van Noort: Van Noort is correct. He said was that the Church cannot pass a "universal law" that would be "conducive to the injury of souls." A "universal law" is a COMMAND that ALL Catholics MUST follow. There is no doubt that the authentic Church cannot pass a bona fide "law" that FORCES EVERYONE to do something that would harm their souls. However, the Church can allow optional disciplines and rites which, arguably, will more or less cause souls to be weakened against the forces of evil. The key word in the previous sentence is "optional." So, while the Church cannot FORCE Catholics to do something harmful. It can ALLOW Catholics to choose a less beneficial option instead of a more salutary option. The most obvious example of this type of ALLOWANCE is the current Church discipline on fasting, which if followed minimally provides almost no spiritual benefit to Catholics. Jesus said that his disciples would "fast" after he departed and that fasting drives out certain demons. Now, however, the Church ALLOWS Catholics to fast only two days per year. Note that the Church does not REQUIRE that Catholics fast ONLY two days per year. No, any Catholic is free to fast much more than the minimum of two days. Similarly, Catholics were not REQUIRED to attend the Novus Ordo. They were ALLOWED to attend it. But they were also allowed to fulfill their liturgical obligation at the Tridentine Mass (and other approved Rites, like the Eastern Rite liturgies). As, Benedict XVI said in Summorum Pontificum, the Mass of Pius V as never abrogated. So, the Novus Ordo can be seen as an experiment to allow Catholics to choose which form of worship they prefer. As Cardinal Roche stated earlier this year, the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine Mass represent two different theologies. Compare the Offertory prayers in the Novus Ordo vs. the Tridentine Mass. One liturgy (the Novus Ordo) offers the "fruit of the earth," the offering of Cain, while the other liturgy (Tridentine) offers the immaculate host/victim, the "first-born of his flock," the offering of Abel (see Genesis 4). God "did not look with favor" on Cain's offering, but he did look with favor on Abel's. Pray about that and remember that only the "blood sacrifice" remits sins. Why would the Church allow these two liturgical alternatives? Read the parable of the Wheat and the Cockle for the answer. God is allowing a self-sifting of His people before the Consummation of the Age. Proper and improper worship is central to this self-sifting. Liturgical minimalism and disciplinary minimalism go together. Members of the Church Militant are in a daily battle against Satan. We need all the graces we can get to avoid sin. Minimalism, of any sort, is not conducive to receiving such graces. The Tridentine Mass is all about the Sacrifice on Calvary for the remission of sins made truly present daily on the altars around the world. The Novus Ordo is a commemoration of the Last Supper and a communion meal to make brothers and sisters more unified in this world. One emphasizes an eternal goal, while the other emphasizes a temporal goal. But Jesus did not die on the Cross so that we would have world peace. He died so that He might atone for our sins that we would have ETERNAL life in heaven with Him. The liturgy represents our offering to God. For the last 50+ years we have been given a choice. Will we follow Cain or Abel? Will we offer God the minimum or the maximum?
I'm sorry, PNF, but your comment below irks me! As Cardinal Roche stated earlier this year, the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine Mass represent two different theologies. Compare the Offertory prayers in the Novus Ordo vs. the Tridentine Mass. One liturgy (the Novus Ordo) offers the "fruit of the earth," the offering of Cain, while the other liturgy (Tridentine) offers the immaculate host/victim, the "first-born of his flock," the offering of Abel (see Genesis 4). God "did not look with favor" on Cain's offering, but he did look with favor on Abel's. Pray about that and remember that only the "blood sacrifice" remits sins. PNF, to associate the offering of the Novus Ordo with the offering of Cain borders on a malicious swipe. Are the Offertory prayers not as substantial in the Novus Ordo? That's correct. But let us first clarify why Cain's offering might have been unacceptable? You blame it on the content of the offering, which implies wayward bishops sought to sabotage the Sacrifice. But the Church Fathers of old disagree: St. John Chrysostom observed that Abel’s piety is demonstrated by “the fact that he did not casually offer any one of his sheep but ‘one of the firstborn,’ that is, from the valuable and special ones,” whereas in Cain’s case, “nothing of the kind is suggested”; Genesis 4:3’s description of Cain bringing “an offering of the fruit of the ground” suggests a lack of zeal or care. Didymus the Blind’s exegesis is virtually identical: Abel’s sincerity is demonstrated by his choice of the firstborn, and “Cain should have done so as well by offering some of the first-fruits,” since what is due to God ought to “be apportioned before everything else.” Instead, Cain procrastinates, bringing his offering “in the course of time” (Gen. 4:3), “as if remembering God only on second thoughts.” They claim it was the procrastination of Cain and his lack of bringing forth the first fruits. At times, you faithful Catholics who attend the TLM spend too much time denigrating the Novus Ordo. Let us earnestly abandon ourselves to Jesus no matter which Holy Mass we attend, so that we become a pleasing offering to the Father in union with Christ! Lord have Mercy!
With respect, the Novus Ordo cannot be seen as an experiment to allow Catholics to choose which form of worship they prefer.
The Catholic Church has many different rites and liturgies. I think it’s 23 or 24. I tried to upload it, but I don’t know what I’m doing. I’m still living in the 1800s.
Yes, tmc, and one of my deacon classmates is from the Maronite Church. Their Liturgy of the Hours is very different from that of Rome. (among other things!) Thanks for the visual!
I imagine that the 1969 liturgical reform could have experimented with translating the various church rites, such as Alexandrian, into each language without altering the duration and course of the liturgy.
Is Pope Francis aware of the different rites of the church because he seems fixated only with the Latin rite. One could say he suffers from Latinphobia.
