The Recusant #59 - Advent 2022

[Stone]

The Recusant #59 - Advent 2022

Contents

• “New Mass Already Condemned by the Church” et alia (Abp. Lefebvre)

• Mass Attendance - Applying the old SSPX’s Doctrinal Clarity:

• “Is The New Mass Legit?”
  
• “Should One Attend the Indult Mass?”
  
• “What About SSPX Masses?”
  

• “Sorrowful Heart of Mary SSPX -MC” Newsletter (Fr Hewko)

• “Red Light Fake Resistance & SSPX!” (Fr Rafael Arizaga OSB)

• “Is the Resistance Justified?” (A Response to a Correspondent)

[Stone]

The Recusant #59 - Editorial:


“There are a number of decent priests still operating as decent priests inside the Novus Ordo. ... I think that for a Catholic like yourself who is looking for the truth…if you look somewhere in your area within reach of your car’s petrol tank, your gasoline tank, you will find, somewhere, you will find a decent Novus Ordo priest. … I believe there are some who do understand it and who still want to practice as good priests. Now, they’re forced to celebrate the New Mass. But I think if you look around you enough and long enough and carefully enough, you will even find young Novus Ordo priests saying the old Mass.”

- Bishop Williamson, 4th August, 2022

Dear Reader,

There can be little doubt that the old SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre would have warned people to stay away from the present-day SSPX, and that they
would have done so using the same language which they used to describe the Indult / Ecclesia Dei priests. They are traitors. They are betraying us. They are shaking hands with those who hold liberal and modernist ideas condemned by the Church. They are shaking hands with the ones who are destroying the Church. People say that we have to be kind to them, that we have to be charitable, after all they say the Traditional Mass, they aren’t as bad as all that, are they? But they’re doing the work of the devil! They are no longer working for the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the salvation of souls. One cannot shake hands with the modernists and at the same time try to defend Tradition. They have accepted the lawfulness and legitimacy of the New Mass and they constantly seek to ingratiate themselves with the modernist bishops and Pope Francis, praising them for the least sign of Catholic spirit. In attempting to restore the Traditional Mass without considering the historical context of the crisis of the Faith, in practice they have abandoned the fight against the new religion which is being installed. Availing ourselves of their Masses means putting ourselves in a state of contradiction. They are Conciliar Catholics, not Traditional Catholics, which is why we ought not to attend their Masses.

All of the above is what used to be said of the Ecclesia Dei / Indult Mass ‘Traditionalists’ (the Fraternity of St. Peter, Le Barroux monastery, et al.) by Archbishop Lefebvre and the old SSPX, and not so very long ago either. Today, the SSPX itself fits that description like a glove. Back then, the faithful were told by the SSPX that they shouldn’t go to the Indult Mass. Today, is it such a stretch to say that we shouldn’t go to the SSPX for Mass?

Furthermore, consider the following. In the years 1988 - 1991, when Archbishop Lefebvre condemned the Fraternity of St. Peter and Le Barroux as being “traitors,” “shaking hands with the modernists” and “doing the work of the devil” he was talking about priests who confidently boasted that they were able to use the Tridentine Missal exclusively.

Furthermore, there was no question of the validity of their holy orders: these original priests had been ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre himself. Even in the 1990s, when priests started appearing who had been ordained with the approval of modern Rome, it was usually by bishops who had themselves been consecrated before the changes, men such as Cardinal Palazzini or Cardinal Oddi. The same is true of the typical diocesan ‘Indult’ Mass of the period. In the late 1980s and early ’90s many of the diocesan priests offering the Indult Mass had been trained and ordained prior to the changes.

More than thirty years have passed since then. Today, the Indult / Motu Proprio priest is a different creature altogether. He is a priest ordained by bishops who are themselves the product of the doubtful Novus Ordo rite of episcopal consecrations. His seminary formation was at best a mixture of Tradition and Vatican II. His ‘permission’ to use the Tridentine Missal exclusively has long been a thing of the past, and in all likelihood he is a priest who offers both, even if he prefers one over the other. Since the end Archbishop Lefebvre’s life the ‘Indult-sphere’ has slid quite a bit further into conciliarism. For a rather alarming real-life example, take the unfortunate case of FSSP priest Fr James Mawdsley, who ‘preaches’ on
youtube (here) that two thirds of humanity make it to heaven, aborted babies go to heaven and that Limbo is only “a theory” which you are free to believe in or reject as you wish (he clearly rejects it). This is what many people today regard as a “Traditional” priest. Terrifying.

And if the Indult priests have slid, who today occupies the space which they once occupied? Who are the modern equivalent of those 1988 “traitors” (certainly valid ordinations, exclusive Tridentine Mass, reluctance to condemn the current Pope, constantly trying to be friendly to the local Novus Ordo bishop and praise him for the least sign of anything Catholic)..? Is that not the modern SSPX? Surely then it is not unreasonable to apply the condemnations of Archbishop Lefebvre and the old SSPX to the present-day SSPX, who have more in common with the Fraternity of St. Peter of 30 years ago than they do with the SSPX of thirty years ago.


Growing Confusion

And yet you might be amazed how much difficulty some people seem to have in grasping this, however obvious it may seem to you or I. Not so very long ago, a former friend from the SSPX wrote to me concerning the Resistance as though we were some sort of bizarre cult, like the ‘Church of Scientology’ or the Moonies and accusing every one of us of living in a perpetual state of mortal sin because we are “deliberately missing Mass on Sunday.” What’s
more, the ‘approved’ Indult / Motu Proprio Masses are included among those which we are in sin for “deliberately missing.” This gentleman has been supporting the SSPX for some thirty-odd years and has sons who are now priests, so I don’t think we can put it down to the innocent naivety of someone who is new to Tradition and doesn’t quite get it yet.

Nor is this growth in muddled thinking confined to the SSPX. Over here in England, the worshippers of Bishop Williamson say the same thing to anyone who’ll listen - namely that we are living in sin because we don’t attend whatever Mass happens to be nearby (be it Fake Resistance, SSPX, Indult… Novus Ordo too, I gather?). Because, you see, it’s a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sunday, as any fule kno, chiz chiz. Among these poor confused people are, I gather, at least one or two who used to attend the Resistance holy hour, for a least a couple of years, back in 2013 and 2014, so they did used to understand. And yet now they don’t. And presumably that must mean that they now condemn the behaviour of their former selves, shrouded in darkness and ignorance as they once were, until along came Bishop Williamson like an angel of light to free them from the intellectual shackles and hypnotism placed on them by the wicked, scheming Pfeifferites, er, I mean Hewko-ites, dispelling the gloomy clouds of ignorance from their minds, and bestowing upon them the spiritual enlightenment that each Sunday, come what may, you should just go to whatever Mass happens to be nearby and that you ought not to trouble yourself too much about which one as long as it isn’t too far from where you live. Any old Mass will do, even one which offends Almighty God. Have I got that right? Hmm. Somehow that just doesn’t seem right to me...

In the SSPX and among the Williamson Worshippers, the signs are not encouraging. When people who once saw clearly now see less clearly; when those who once made sacrifices now claim they no longer need to and even make a virtue out of not doing so; when important distinctions which used to be clearly understood are now replaced by one big blanket statement about ‘mortal sin’; when the question of what is pleasing to God becomes the question of what is convenient for me... There’s a word for that. It is what one calls a decline. Things are going backwards, they are getting worse, they are sliding downhill. They can’t see it themselves, because they are the ones sliding; to those of us on the outside, it is quite plain. But God has not changed. His teaching has not changed. And therefore the right way to act has not changed either. If in the 1990s it was wrong for us to attend the Indult Mass and right to stay away, even when there was no SSPX Mass nearby, then how has it become right to attend the Indult Mass in 2022 and “mortal sin” to stay away? How can it be right for Bishop Williamson to tell Traditional Catholics that they can get grace from going to the New Mass and recommend would-be Traditional Catholics to find whatever “decent” Novus Ordo priests lives near them, unless Archbishop Lefebvre was wrong to tell people to avoid it at all costs, even if it was the only Mass available in the whole country, and wrong to tell people to behave instead like the Catholics in the Amazon rainforest missions, saying the rosary and reading the missal on Sunday rather than risk having anything to do with the New Mass..? They can’t both be right. If one is right, the other has to be wrong.

It’s obvious. And yet fewer and fewer people can see what ought to be plain as the nose on your face. If it displeases God - no, if you even think it displeasing to God - then you don’t do it. If the end does not justify the means, if we cannot do evil that good may come of it, is it acceptable behaviour for Catholics to make compromises with the modernist enemy in order to gain access to the sacraments more often? Perhaps someone can enlighten me as to what it is I’m missing and where I’m going wrong?

In the meantime, we will keep praying and sacrificing for the restoration of the Church.

- The Editor

[Stone]

[Stone]

Source: https://fsspx.news/en/content/32569 see also: thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=4382

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre: The New Rite Condemned by the Tradition of the Church

Extracts from “The Mass of All Time”

1. The judgement of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci

We are not judging the intention but the facts and the consequences of these facts, similar incidentally, to those of past centuries where these reforms had been introduced oblige us to acknowledge, along with Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci (Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass, sent to the Holy Father on September 3, 1969) that the “Novus Ordo Missae … represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated at the Council of Trent.1”


2. A new rite already condemned by several Popes and Councils

It is a conception more Protestant than Catholic which expresses everything which has been unduly exalted and everything which has been diminished. Contrary to the teachings of the 22nd session of the Council of Trent, contrary to the encyclical Mediator Dei of Pius XII, the role of the faithful in the participation of the Mass has been exaggerated, and the role of the priest has been belittled to that of a mere president. 

It has exaggerated the place given to the liturgy of the Word and lessened the place given to the propitiatory Sacrifice. It has exalted the communal meal and secularized it, at the expense of respect for and faith in the Real Presence effected by transubstantiation.

In suppressing the sacred language, it has pluralized the rites ad infinitum, profaning them by incorporating worldly or pagan elements, and it has spread false translations at the expense of the true faith and genuine piety of the faithful.

And yet the Councils of Florence2 and Trent3 had both declared anathemas against all of these changes, while affirming that our Mass in its Canon dated back to Apostolic times.

The popes St. Pius V and Clement VIII insisted on the necessity of avoiding changes and transformation and of preserving perpetually this Roman Rite hallowed by Tradition.

The desacralisation of the Mass and its secularisation lead to the laicisation of the priesthood, in the Protestant manner.4

How can this reform of the Mass be reconciled with the canons of the Council of Trent and the condemnations in the Bull Auctorem Fidei of Pius VI?


3. “It is Tradition which condemns them, not me”

I do not set myself up as a judge; I am nothing, I am merely an echo of a Magisterium which is clear, which is evident, which is in all of the books, the papal encyclicals, council documents, basically in all of the theological books prior to the Council. What is being said now does not at all conform with the Magisterium which has been professed for two thousand years. Therefore it is the Tradition of the Church, her Magisterium which condemns them. Not me!


4. The traditional judgments of the Church on the Eucharist are definitive

As for our attitude vis-à-vis the liturgical reform and the breviary, we must hold fast to the affirmations of the Council of Trent. It is hard to see how to reconcile it with the liturgical reform. Yet the Council of Trent is a dogmatic, definitive Council and once the Church has made a definitive pronouncement on certain matters, another council may not change these definitions. Without this no more truth is possible!

Faith is something which is unchangeable. When the Church has presented it with all of her authority, there is an obligation to believe it to be immutable. Now, if the Council of Trent went to the trouble of adding anathemas to all of the verities concerning the sacraments and the liturgy, it was not for nothing. How can they behave so casually, as if the Council of Trent no longer exists and say that Vatican II has the same authority and consequently can change everything? We might just as well change our Credo which dates from the Council of Nicea, which is much more ancient, because Vatican II has the same authority and is more important than the Council of Nicea…

It is our duty to be firm about these things, and this is the strongest response we can make to the liturgical reform: it goes against the absolutely definitive and dogmatic definitions of the Council of Trent.


5. An avowal by Paul VI

Here is an interesting little fact which illustrates what Paul VI thought of the changes in the Mass. (…) Jean Guitton asked him: “Why would you not accept that the priests at Écône continue to celebrate the Mass of St. Pius V? It was what was said before. I do not see why the seminary is refused the ancient Mass. Why not allow them to celebrate it?” The response given by Paul VI is very significant. He replied: “No, if we grant the Mass of St. Pius V to the Society of St. Pius X, all that we have gained through Vatican II will be lost.” (…) It is extraordinary that the pope could see the ruin of Vatican II in the return of the ancient Mass. It was an incredible revelation! This is why the liberals wanted so much for us to say this Mass which represents for them a totally different concept of the Church. The Mass of St. Pius V is not liberal, it is anti-liberal and anti-ecumenical. Therefore it cannot conform to the spirit of Vatican II.



1 - Archbishop Lefebvre, letter to Cardinal Seper, 26th February 1978
2 - cf. DS 1320
3 - cf. DS 1751, 1753, 1756, 1759
4 - ‘Open Letter to the Pope’ 21st November 1983

* * * * *


What did Archbishop Lefebvre say about Attending the New Mass?

1974:
“Is the New Mass really intrinsically bad? If the Mass were intrinsically bad, I would say, well, I would say you can’t do an intrinsically bad act, that’s always forbidden; but if the Mass is not intrinsically bad, but only bad due to the circumstances which surround it … well since circumstances can change, can be changed…if there are seminarians who don’t have any other Mass, can they go to a Mass like that? I think so, what can you do! … However, I also told you, I think at least twice, that it is possible that our attitude, our position regarding this problem might become firmer or somehow harder, so to speak...” (Écône, 1974)


1975-1981:
“Little by little the Archbishop’s position hardened … In 1975 he admitted that one could ‘assist occasionally at the New Mass when one feared going without Communion for a long time.’ [...] Soon, Archbishop Lefebvre would no longer tolerate participation at Masses celebrated in the new rite except passively, for example at funerals. … He considered that it was bad in itself and not only because of the circumstances in which the rite was performed.” ( “Biography of Marcel Lefebvre,” p465 ff)


1976:
“The [new] rite of the Mass is a bastard rite, the sacraments are bastard sacraments – we no longer know if they are sacraments which give grace or which do not give grace.” (Lille, 1976)


1978:
“What should be our attitude in general towards these New Masses, even if it would be difficult to be able to assist at a Mass of Saint Pius V? I believe that we must be more and more severe. little by little … one no longer sees, one becomes blind. This is why I think we must avoid going to these Masses.” (Écône, 1978)


1979:
“It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith. All these innovations are authorized. One can fairly say without exaggeration that most of these [new] Masses are sacrilegious acts which pervert the Faith by diminishing it.” (November 1979)


1981:
“This Mass is not bad in a merely accidental or extrinsic way. There is something in it that is truly bad. … Really, in conscience, I cannot advise anyone to attend this Mass, it is not possible.” (Abp. Lefebvre, 1981 - cf. David Allen White, ‘The Horn of the Unicorn’, p.224 ff.)


1985:
“Your perplexity takes perhaps the following form: may I assist at a sacrilegious mass which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation? The answer is simple: these masses cannot be the object of an obligation; we must moreover apply to them the rules of moral theology and canon law as regards the participation or the attendance at an action which endangers the faith or may be sacrilegious.

The new Mass, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, is subject to the same reservations since it is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith. That being the case, the French Catholic of today finds himself in the conditions of religious practice which prevail in missionary countries. There, the inhabitants in some regions are only able to attend Mass three or four times a year. The faithful of our country should make the effort to attend one each month at the Mass of all time, the true source of grace and sanctification, in one of those places where it continues to be held in honour.” (Open Letter to Confused Catholics, 1985)


1990:
“And that’s why I will never celebrate the Mass according to the new rite, even under threat of ecclesiastical penalties and I will never advise anyone positively to participate actively in such a Mass. Because people are still asking us those questions: ‘I have not the Mass of St. Pius V on Sunday, and there is a mass said by a priest that I know well, a holy man, so, wouldn’t it be better to go to the mass of this priest, even if it is the new mass but said with piety, instead of abstaining?’ No! This is not true! This is not true, because this rite is bad! Is bad, is bad! And the reason why this rite is bad in itself, is because it is poisoned. It is a poisoned rite! Mr. Salleron says it very well, here: ‘It is not a choice between two rites that could be good. It is a choice between a Catholic Rite and a rite that is practically bordering on Protestantism,’ and thus, which attacks our faith, the Catholic Faith! So, it is out of question to encourage people to go to Mass in the new rite. […]

I’m a little surprised, you know. Sometimes, I receive a lot of requests for consultations from our priests who are in the priories and some are asking me: ‘What should one reply to a person who says he cannot have the Mass of St. Pius V and who believes that he is under the obligation to go to a mass of the new rite, said by a good priest, a serious priest who offers all the guarantees almost of holiness? etc.’ But, I do not understand how they cannot answer this by themselves! They don’t find the conclusion by themselves and they feel obliged to ask me such a thing. It's incredible! So you see, there are still some who hesitate. This is unbelievable!” (Fideliter, April 1990)

* * * * *



Archbishop Lefebvre on the Indult / Ecclesia Dei Priests

“And we must not waver for one moment either in not being with those who are in the process of betraying us. Some people [say] ‘After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says’ - but they are betraying us - betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church's destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil’s work. Thus those who were with us and were working with us for the rights of Our Lord, for the salvation of souls, are now saying, ‘So long as they grant us the old Mass, we can shake hands with Rome, no problem.’ ” (Two Years After the Consecrations, Fideliter, 1990)

[Stone]

[Stone]

From page 10:

A Letter from Archbishop Lefebvre Regarding The Indult Mass

Saint-Michel en Brenne,
18 March 1989


Dear Father Couture,

I am responding immediately to your kind letter which I received yesterday at SaintMichel, to tell you what I think about those priests who have received a “celebret” from the Roman Commission charged with dividing and destroying us.

It is evident that by putting themselves in the hands of the current conciliar authorities, they are implicitly accepting the Council and the ensuing reforms, even if they have received some privileges which remain exceptional and provisory.

Their speech is paralyzed because of this acceptance. The bishops are watching them! It is very regrettable that these priests are not aware of this reality. But we cannot fool the faithful.

The same may be said regarding these “Traditional Masses” organised by the dioceses. They are celebrated between two Conciliar Masses. The celebrating priest says the New as well as the Old. How, and by whom is Holy Communion distributed? What will the sermon be? etc.

These Masses are scams which lead the faithful to compromise their principles! Many have already abandoned them.

What must change is their Liberal and Modernist Doctrine. We must arm ourselves with patience and pray. God’s hour will come.

God’s blessings to you on this holy feast of Easter. Best regards to you in Christ and Mary.


+ Marcel Lefebvre