15,000 people gathered in Écône, Switzerland, for the SSPX Ordination
of four new bishops. The size of the crowd is evidence.
In her "Forward Boldly" podcast, Christine Niles recently proclaimed that the SSPX's claim that the Novus Ordo (NO) Mass is "evil" was "extreme," and therefore, because it was "extreme," SSPX was wrong. Christine went on to explain SSPX's rationale for their "evil" claim. The claim centered on sins of omission, not commission. SSPX does not like the NO Mass because of what it leaves out of the TLM (Tridentine Mass). I agree with SSPX on this. But I had not thought of the sin of ignoring what was previously considered sacred and necessary as evil. SSPX points to a slippery slope. What do we eliminate next? For hundreds of years, and I believe numerous popes, have proclaimed the TLM as sacred and necessary. Now Francis and Leo think it's wrong and should not be celebrated. To me that is extreme.
I came into the church from Protestant Evangelicalism in 1998. One reason was that I could understand the NO, which was celebrated in my English vernacular. But since then, in my Catholic apologetic work and research, I have come to believe that the NO is a rebellion against the reverence of the traditional TLM, and that, by eliminating prayers and acts of reverence and by modern accommodation, it has become sacramentally vulgar...and therefore I have no problem with the SSPX's claim that it is evil.
The NO is priest-centered, not God-centered; it does not respect the Eucharist liturgically (in 100 ways), and by the use of extraordinary ministers, and promoting communion in the hand. The NO is "versus populum" (facing the people) with the priest turning his back to God. This is the explicit expression of the logical fallacy "ad populum" (making accommodation to the people and the masses). Although I’m told "ad orientem" (the priest and people face God) is not strictly forbidden in the NO, our “wonderful” new “Francis” bishop here in Detroit (Wiesenberger) has forbidden it. Some bishops are refusing to let us kneel to receive the body of our Lord. THESE are the EXTREMES. Christine Niles gets it wrong.
The claim of extremes should be directed to the NO and Francis and Leo’s objection to the TLM. But there are more extremes in the NO.
The use of the vernacular is not conducive to worship of God Almighty, when we have a liturgical language (Latin) that is not used anywhere in the secular world. The virtue of Latin is that, unlike vernacular languages, Latin does not change. It's a "dead" language. Vernacular languages contribute to misunderstandings through linguistic and logical fallacies and thus are crucibles for heresies. I've said for years that Protestantism is the consequence of equivocations (misuse of the vernacular).
Compared to chant, the use of popular music is like fingernails on a chalkboard.
I'll say nothing about how people dress and act in the NO vs the TLM. (Well, I guess I did say something.) Yes, the NO could be more reverent, but the tone of Vatican II (V2) and how it has been implemented in the NO promote shorts and flip-flops, indifference to the Eucharist and all things formerly held sacred.
Vatican II, from which the NO evolved, is pastoral, not dogmatic or doctrinal. No new doctrines were defined, nor was a heresy condemned. And yet, Francis and Leo and many bishops act as if V2 is dogmatic, and therefore treat the NO as dogma. But NOTHING out of V2 is dogmatic, so why are we pretending the secular, modernist NO is dogmatic?
(see https://www.youtube.com/c/MassoftheAges)
I am disturbed by pundits incorrectly calling everything a pope does as "indefectible," which means the pope is unfailing, faultless, and incapable of defect or decay. Traditionis Custodes is not an ex cathedra infallible pronouncement. It was Francis's opinion, no doubt driven by wrongheaded (evil?) influences in the Vatican or his own ignorance of the TLM since he wasn't ordained until after V2 and may have never celebrated or even sat through a TLM.
Consider this. Historically, Popes have issued documents (papal bulls) whereby slavery was authorized as acceptable. [c.f. Nicholas V's Dum Diversas (1452), Nicholas V's Romanus Pontifex (1455), and Alexander VI's Inter Caetera (1492).] Stop with the indefectibility heresy. Popes are sinners like the rest of us. Stop conflating "indefectibility" with infallibility, wherein what has been rare (infallibility) becomes ubiquitous (indefectibility). Yes, you will try to parse the words. But it’s not convincing. Shall we start to enumerate past popes' foibles and sins to make the point? (c.f. the children of Alexander VI, Paul III, and Julius II) Traditionis Custodes will soon be recanted as wrong.
Finally, Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez, who has been charged with writing much for Francis (and Leo?), is a disgrace, starting with his authorship as a priest of "Heal Me With Your Mouth: The Art of Kissing." Fernandez's writing of Laudato si is unreadable by anyone with a science background. I’ve tried three times, and my degree in physics makes the document a textbook example of cringe. Fernandez also authored Fiducia Supplicans, which has popularly been interpreted as approval of blessing homosexual unions, though Francis has backtracked that interpretation...and yet Fr. James Martin has done it with immunity.
So, the Vatican is not always a credible source of what is right and wrong. As expected of any human institution, the Vatican, at times (and currently, I claim), bastardizes Jesus' prophecy that the Church would get everything right. I suppose the prophecy that the Church would fall in the last days is coming true.
Critical thinking (comparing and contrasting) with history and truth sustained through the centuries is necessary. Do it. Use it.
