09-25-2022, 01:12 PM
From Issue 42 of The Recusant:
...and consequently, is it true or just or honest to characterise the Archbishop as being essentially in agreement with a man who says that you can attend the New Mass daily if you subjectively feel that it ‘nourishes’ you, that not every priest should leave the Novus Ordo nor should every faithful stop attending it, that God is using it to save souls without needing Tradition and that even Traditional Catholics who know what the New Mass is can still receive grace by attending it?
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...”
1975:
“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.”
1976:
“Let there be no mistake, it is not a matter of a difference between Mgr. Lefebvre and Pope Paul VI. It is a matter of the radical incompatibility between the Catholic Church and the conciliar church, the mass of Paul VI representing the symbol and the programme of the conciliar church.”
1978:
“This is why I think that, given this increasingly serious and increasingly dangerous evolution, we must also avoid more and more, and I would almost say, in a radical way, any assistance at this New Mass.”
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.”
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.”
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!”
In 1974 Archbishop Lefebvre gave his cautious permission to attend the New Mass on the grounds that he did not (yet) consider it to be intrinsically bad:
“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…”
So, is the New Mass intrinsically bad, or isn’t it?
Here is what the SSPX used to say on the question:
“However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful. […] 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.”
“Well, the Society is definitely against the New Mass. We even say that it is ‘intrinsically evil’. That’s a delicate label that needs a little explanation. By this we mean that the New Mass in itself – the New Mass as the New Mass, as it is written – is evil, because as such you find in it the definition of evil. The definition of evil is ‘the privation of a due good’. Something that should be in the New Mass is not there and that’s evil. What is really Catholic has been taken out of the New Mass. The Catholic specification of the Mass has been taken away. That’s enough to say that it is evil. And look at the terrible fruits.”
“Now, even if one wanted to contest the heretical elements of the New Mass, the sole refusal to profess Catholic dogmas quintessential to the Mass renders the new liturgy deficient. It is like a captain who refuses to provide his shipmen with a proper diet. They soon become sick with scurvy due, not so much to direct poison, as from vitamin deficiency. Such is the new Mass. At best, it provides a deficient spiritual diet to the faithful. The correct definition of evil – lack of a due good – clearly shows that the New Mass is evil in and of itself regardless of the circumstances. It is not evil by positive profession of heresy. It is evil by lacking what Catholic dogma should profess: the True Sacrifice, the Real Presence, the ministerial priesthood.”
“Since the expression of intrinsically evil is an extremely strong one, I think it is better to reserve it to the greater evil of the positive expression of heresy, and to keep the expression ‘evil in itself’ to the lesser evil of the omission of the profession of Faith. But one must acknowledge that this omission is in the New Mass in itself, in the Latin original version.”
“Q.65 - Is it permissible to take part in the New Mass?
Even if the New Mass is valid, it is displeasing to God inasmuch as it is ecumenical and protestantising; moreover it represents a danger to our faith in the holy sacrifice of the Mass. Thus it must be rejected. Whoever has understood the problem of the New Mass must no longer attend it because he would be deliberately endangering his faith, and at the same time this would be encouraging others to do likewise be seeming to assent to the reforms.
Surely one may attend a New Mass when it is devoutly and piously celebrated by a Catholic priest with an absolutely unquestionable faith? The celebrant is not the issue, but the rite he uses. … The New Mass is one of the main sources of the current crisis of faith. It is thus imperative to distance oneself from it.”
“Q.66 - May one attend the New Mass in some circumstances?
One should apply the rules analogous to those governing attendance at non-Catholic ceremonies to attendance at the New Mass. One may attend for family or professional reasons, but without actively participating; and, of course, one does not go to Communion.”
“Q.67 - What should be done when it is not possible to attend a Traditional Mass every Sunday?
One for whom attendance at a Traditional Mass is not possible is excused from the obligation to attend Mass that Sunday. The precept of hearing Mass on Sunday only applies to attendance at a true Catholic Mass. One must, however, in this case at least try to attend a traditional Mass at regular intervals. Moreover, even if one is dispensed from attending Mass (which is a commandment of the Church), one is not dispensed from the commandment of God (“Remember thou keep holy the Lord’s day”). Thus, the Mass one could not attend must be replaced by something; for example, by reading the text of the Mass in one’s missal, by uniting one’s attention for the duration of a Mass with a Mass celebrated elsewhere, and by making a spiritual communion.”
WAS ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE INCONSISTENT OR DID HE CHANGE HIS OPINION OVER TIME?
...and consequently, is it true or just or honest to characterise the Archbishop as being essentially in agreement with a man who says that you can attend the New Mass daily if you subjectively feel that it ‘nourishes’ you, that not every priest should leave the Novus Ordo nor should every faithful stop attending it, that God is using it to save souls without needing Tradition and that even Traditional Catholics who know what the New Mass is can still receive grace by attending it?
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 Conference, 1st April, 1974
1975:
“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.”
- (See: Tissier, “Biography of Marcel Lefebvre,” p465 ff)
1976:
“Let there be no mistake, it is not a matter of a difference between Mgr. Lefebvre and Pope Paul VI. It is a matter of the radical incompatibility between the Catholic Church and the conciliar church, the mass of Paul VI representing the symbol and the programme of the conciliar church.”
- ‘Agence France Presse’ Communiqué, 12th July 1976
1978:
“This is why I think that, given this increasingly serious and increasingly dangerous evolution, we must also avoid more and more, and I would almost say, in a radical way, any assistance at this New Mass.”
- Écône Conference, 21st March 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.”
- 8th November, 1979, (See: Davies, ‘Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Ch.40)
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.”
- (See: D A White ‘Horn of the Unicorn’ p.224 ff)
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!”
- April 1990 (Fideliter)
THE OLD SSPX SPEAKS - IS THE NEW MASS INTRINSICALLY EVIL?
In 1974 Archbishop Lefebvre gave his cautious permission to attend the New Mass on the grounds that he did not (yet) consider it to be intrinsically bad:
“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…”
So, is the New Mass intrinsically bad, or isn’t it?
Here is what the SSPX used to say on the question:
“However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful. […] 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.”
- Fr. Peter Scott, “Questions & Answers”, The Angelus magazine, September 2002
“Well, the Society is definitely against the New Mass. We even say that it is ‘intrinsically evil’. That’s a delicate label that needs a little explanation. By this we mean that the New Mass in itself – the New Mass as the New Mass, as it is written – is evil, because as such you find in it the definition of evil. The definition of evil is ‘the privation of a due good’. Something that should be in the New Mass is not there and that’s evil. What is really Catholic has been taken out of the New Mass. The Catholic specification of the Mass has been taken away. That’s enough to say that it is evil. And look at the terrible fruits.”
- Bishop Bernard Fellay, conference in Kansas City, Missouri, 5th March 2002
“Now, even if one wanted to contest the heretical elements of the New Mass, the sole refusal to profess Catholic dogmas quintessential to the Mass renders the new liturgy deficient. It is like a captain who refuses to provide his shipmen with a proper diet. They soon become sick with scurvy due, not so much to direct poison, as from vitamin deficiency. Such is the new Mass. At best, it provides a deficient spiritual diet to the faithful. The correct definition of evil – lack of a due good – clearly shows that the New Mass is evil in and of itself regardless of the circumstances. It is not evil by positive profession of heresy. It is evil by lacking what Catholic dogma should profess: the True Sacrifice, the Real Presence, the ministerial priesthood.”
- (author unknown) “Is the New Mass Legit”, sspx.org, 25th May, 2011
“Since the expression of intrinsically evil is an extremely strong one, I think it is better to reserve it to the greater evil of the positive expression of heresy, and to keep the expression ‘evil in itself’ to the lesser evil of the omission of the profession of Faith. But one must acknowledge that this omission is in the New Mass in itself, in the Latin original version.”
- Fr. Francois Laisney, “Is the Novus Ordo Missae Evil?”, The Angelus magazine, March 1997
“Q.65 - Is it permissible to take part in the New Mass?
Even if the New Mass is valid, it is displeasing to God inasmuch as it is ecumenical and protestantising; moreover it represents a danger to our faith in the holy sacrifice of the Mass. Thus it must be rejected. Whoever has understood the problem of the New Mass must no longer attend it because he would be deliberately endangering his faith, and at the same time this would be encouraging others to do likewise be seeming to assent to the reforms.
Surely one may attend a New Mass when it is devoutly and piously celebrated by a Catholic priest with an absolutely unquestionable faith? The celebrant is not the issue, but the rite he uses. … The New Mass is one of the main sources of the current crisis of faith. It is thus imperative to distance oneself from it.”
“Q.66 - May one attend the New Mass in some circumstances?
One should apply the rules analogous to those governing attendance at non-Catholic ceremonies to attendance at the New Mass. One may attend for family or professional reasons, but without actively participating; and, of course, one does not go to Communion.”
“Q.67 - What should be done when it is not possible to attend a Traditional Mass every Sunday?
One for whom attendance at a Traditional Mass is not possible is excused from the obligation to attend Mass that Sunday. The precept of hearing Mass on Sunday only applies to attendance at a true Catholic Mass. One must, however, in this case at least try to attend a traditional Mass at regular intervals. Moreover, even if one is dispensed from attending Mass (which is a commandment of the Church), one is not dispensed from the commandment of God (“Remember thou keep holy the Lord’s day”). Thus, the Mass one could not attend must be replaced by something; for example, by reading the text of the Mass in one’s missal, by uniting one’s attention for the duration of a Mass with a Mass celebrated elsewhere, and by making a spiritual communion.”
- Fr. Matthias Gaudron, ‘Catechism of the Crisis in the Church,’ Q65ff (Angelus Press 2010 edition, p.152 ff.)
"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Abp. Lefebvre