Welcome registrants:
frankrega
karen****@protonmail.com
At The Roman Post there is a piece about about Roman’s use some free time during the day. This pretty accurately describes certain moments of my daily routine.
Tra le abitudini più comuni ci sono:
-
- Il caffè preso al bancone.
- La passeggiata nel quartiere.
- Una sosta al mercato rionale.
- L’aperitivo dopo il lavoro.
- Due chiacchiere con il barista o con i vicini.
- Il passaggio nei negozi di fiducia.
A lesson in reading.
What the writer says the SSPX says: The Novus Ordo lacks “the True Sacrifice, the Real Presence, [&] the ministerial priesthood,”
What the SSPX piece says: The Novus Ordo “is not evil by positive profession of heresy. It is evil in lacking what Catholic dogma should profess: the True Sacrifice, the Real Presence, the ministerial priesthood”.
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. The writer says that the SSPX is saying something it doesn’t say. The SSPX is saying that the rites of the Novus Ordo do not clearly or adequately reflect the Church’s teaching about the Sacrifice, Presence, and priesthood. The writer says the SSPX says that the Novus lacks those things. That’s not the same thing.
The SSPX do not just prefer the old form of Mass… They call the Mass that feeds ~99% of Catholics “evil.”
They claim it lacks “the True Sacrifice, the Real Presence, [&] the ministerial priesthood,” yet all 3 are clearly in all approved Catholic rites.
By this, they are… pic.twitter.com/m8sH8uAFFO
— Fr Matthew P. Schneider, LC?? (@FrMatthewLC) July 6, 2026
Meanwhile,
Latin Mass Attending SSPX’ers receive Communion reverently on the tongue while kneeling.
Those at the Novus Ordo do the Chicken Dance when receiving Communion.
But the Pope excommunicated
almost a million SSPX’erspic.twitter.com/WEoIlYvLCP— dxv515? (@Mwarning515) July 7, 2026
Please remember me when shopping online and use my affiliate links. US HERE – WHY? This helps to pay for health insurance, utilities, groceries, etc.. At no extra cost, you provide help for which I am grateful.
White to move and mate in 4.
NB: I’ll excommunicate comments with solutions ’till the next day so there won’t be “spoilers” for others.
This really is a failure to understand that while all four-sided figures are quadrilaterals, some are rhombuses and some are rectangles. Of the rectangles, some are squares. Failure to comprehend and read.
The SSPX is saying that what is important is squareness. Fr. S is saying that what is important is being a quadrilateral and is upset that square people insist on right angles and equal sides because that is not important to being a quadrilateral.
Enter Fr. “Call Me Bob,” who thinks that Fr. S is wrong about being concerned about being a quadrilateral; that one should simply be concerned about being a figure; one-sided, two-sided, three-sided, four-sided, five-sided, they are all equally figures in the eyes of God.
I don’t want the Novus Ordo anymore than Jacob wanted Leah.
I keep seeing these posts of liturgical abuses in the NO. While these are all valid and quite frankly disturbing, the whataboutism argument that is then used to defend the actions of the SSPX are not logical.
These are two separate but related subjects.
In one, the Pope via the head of the DDF in his authority as Pope declared (at least some) members of SSPX to be in schism and thus excommunicated-because they disobeyed the Pope.
These liturgical abuses absolutely ought to be dealt with but two things can be true at once. The Vatican can appropriately (from an authority perspective at least) discipline the SSPX while inappropriately allowing liturgical abuses.
Further, quite frequently these examples of liturgical abuse in the NO are used as a “see? This is why the NO is evil and wrong” but I’d imagine that if we experienced the liturgical abuses of the Latin Mass pre-VII (which were happening albeit in different forms) I don’t think anyone in here would be claiming there was an issue with the liturgy.
But that SSPX District is still saying that the new Mass is “evil”, and also that it lacks True Sacrifice, Real Presence, and ministerial priesthood.
These are outrageous claims.
Or what, is something like “the New Mass is evil in and of itself regardless of the circumstances” somehow unclear ?
BTW that particular SSPX teaching contradicts the teaching of Trent in its establishing of who gets to establish new Rites of the Holy Mass.
And don’t forget the ridiculousness of the Cardinal Radcliffe’s statement on blessing/not blessing recently. Can’t wait for a censure from Rome.
With respect Father, there is no ambiguity or miscommunication here. The SSPX quote literally says “the New Mass is evil in and of itself regardless of the circumstances.”
The SSPX is not engaging in a scholarly critique in this piece, pointing out deficiencies that might be improved, it’s launching a full frontal assault that the New Mass is evil “in and of itself”.
I read the entire article that is referenced here, and was deeply troubled by it. As with so many things SSPX, they hit the nail on the head about 99% of the time. It’s the other 1% that is absolutely terrifying.
I’m confused as to why you are parsing this as you are, Father. With all due respect, it seems to me you are splitting hairs. The article does indeed say “IT IS EVIL BY LACKING (what Catholic dogma should profess:) the True Sacrifice, the Real Presence, the ministerial priesthood.”
How is that different from what the writer claims, except for the qualifying phrase in parentheses, which doesn’t change the import of the sentence? The article clearly states that the Novus Ordo Mass “is evil in and of itself regardless of the circumstances.” And that it is evil BECAUSE it lacks these things.
There is a lot of information brought up in the rest of this article that indeed ought to give all Catholics pause, and wonder what on Earth was foisted upon them in the name of the Council (and how). And far be it from me to defend the extreme deficiencies of the Novus Ordo Mass.
But the fact remains that a) whether or not it was the product intended by the Council; b) whether or not it was promulgated correctly; c) whether or not it has resulted in a catastrophic loss of faith…there is no one alive at this moment who is both willing and endowed with the right to officially declare otherwise than that the transubstantiation at the core of the Novus Ordo Mass is both valid and efficacious. Not only are we bound to believe this because the Church assures us it is so, but it is proven by multiple, scientifically proven Eucharistic miracles.
The SSPX claims to believe that the Novus Ordo is a valid Mass. But then they write articles like this which contradict that statement. And they teach their faithful, in their schools and in the confessional, (and yes, I can PERSONALLY attest to this) that to attend the Novus Ordo is a SIN which must be confessed before receiving the Eucharist in their chapels.
So…personally I don’t like the Novus Ordo Mass any more than the SSPX does. I agree with 99% of what they say about it. But to assert that “it is EVIL in and of itself regardless of the circumstances” is a bridge too far, and this is why I do truly believe that they are schismatic and pray that they can eventually be reconciled.
All of that being said, I’m truly brokenhearted over all this and have been suffering agonies over this wound in the Church, and praying for people on both sides of this divide. God help us all!
@OKC Catholic Dad
You seriously think there were dancing priests and inflatable flappy men and dancing clown Masses prior to Vatican II? You’re making accusations against “what-about-ism” and then doing your own variation by trying to equate a priest irreverently speeding through the TLM with a half-naked priest offering Mass on an inflatable floatie in the ocean. It’s an attempt to try and dramatically under-emphasize the enormity of the liturgical abuses that have been going on since Vatican II, and that dog just doesn’t hunt.
You’re also confusing the point. Most folks are not doing a “what-aboutism” argument. And they are not saying the pope does not have the authority to excommunicate the SSPX. What they are saying is it is hypocritical to focus so much attention on excommunicating the SSPX for the cause of “schism” when they are in union with the Catholic Faith as it existed prior to Vatican II and pray for the pope daily while completely ignoring the vast amounts of liturgical abuse and continuing to suppress the TLM within the diocesan Church. In fact, it is these types of liturgical abuses, their prevalence and enormity, combined with the Vatican’s not only ignoring them but specifically targeting the Vetus Ordo for restrictions, that gives credence to the SSPX position that there is a hitherto unimaginable crisis taking place within the Church.
Reading comprehension is a problem across the board in many areas.
I take issue with the way the SSPX has formulated their statement that the Novus Ordo is evil. If that were true, conversions to the Latin Church would have stopped a long time ago, but converts are still won by even this Mass.
My view is that the Novus Ordo is sufficient with well-catechized laity and well-formed clergy, but the problem is most laity have not been well-catechized for decades and the Novus Ordo does not supply what the catechesis lacks as well as the older form does. As for priestly formation, the seminaries haven’t exactly been solid as a rock in recent decades, especially with liturgy. If we still had the old Mass coupled with the seminaries we had from the 60s through 90s, I bet we’d see a lot of nonsense going on with the older Missal. We can be happy in a certain sense liturgists have tried to suppress the old Mass and put all their tomfoolery into the Novus Ordo rather than try to work their innovations into the Vetus as the only vehicle available.
Sufficient does not mean it’s as good as what went before or that it can’t be improved (it would benefit greatly by taking the microphone off Father and returning the focus to the altar after the sermon by making most of that section inaudible). Still, a well-formed priest offering a Novus Ordo faithful to the black and the red is going to produce fruit.
@OKC Catholic Dad
—>I’d imagine that if we experienced the liturgical abuses of the Latin Mass pre-VII (which were happening albeit in different forms) I don’t think anyone in here would be claiming there was an issue with the liturgy.
That is the issue — does the structure of the liturgy give rise to the liturgical abuse?
The SSPX’s argument is that if the TLM rubrics are followed, then there will be no liturgical abuse. The SSPX’s argument is that if the NO rubrics are followed, then you can (or will, depending on what parts of the choose your own adventure liturgy are followed) get liturgical abuse.
The NO supporters either argue that anything that doesn’t follow “the spirit of Vatican II”^tm is not in accord with the council^tm and the spirit^tm and now “the synodal church”^tm and is thus liturgical abuse. Get with the program. OR You just have to follow the rubrics according to the “hermeneutic of continuity”, which amounts to sneaking in traditional elements where you can. (And yes, “sneaking in”. I was just at a parish the other week where they have a certain initiative that, when you look it up online, is couched in the most lawyer speak possible to get it under the chancery’s nose.)
There is a really nice chart out there that shows the TLM and the NO side by side. What it doesn’t do is show the NO choose your own adventure all as one piece OR show the best possible of the NO vs the worst possible choices in the NO. And if you consider the worst possible choice, you will notice that the priest really has a very large latitude to do what they want in many sections.
So, in the allowable worst, is that attitude intrinsic to the allowable best? If not, then why not get rid of the allowable worst? IE the position among the NO hermeneutic of continuity people to get rid of problematic elements, say, the sign of peace. If it is intrinsic, then we have a major problem (which is what the SSPX says.)
–>The Vatican can appropriately discipline
Agreed. Are the excommunications “appropriate discipline”? No. At the very least, there is a rule in law that, unless the law is applied equally, then its application, whether lax or harsh, is inherently unjust.
I second @Rob83’s proposal that the microphone be turned off when the priest is at the altar. I find often the loudness of audio so incredibly intrusive that all ability to pray seems to be completely wiped out. I have often thought if they would just turn off the mike, the Novus Ordo would be multiple degrees more bearable. And that goes for the volume of the mike(s) on the singers as well.
And in addition, they should get rid of any big screen projector systems installed as well. Distraction writ large.
There is a certain… willful distortion that goes on. While I disagree with the approach of the SSPX in their dialogue, and in the consecrations against the will of the pope, I recognize their frustration and it is sometimes hard to take their detractors as honest interlocutors when either misinformed and undeniably incorrect on the particulars, regardless lacking in charity themselves for all their accusations.
Near everyone who loves the TLM would admit that it more fully expresses the Catholic faith than the NO: the Mass as a Sacrifice offered in propitiation for the living and the dead, the Sacrificial priesthood, and so on. All points underscored by Trent and held close by the TLM right up even through it’s post conciliar eviscerations.
Most of us would admit that, perhaps thanks to the Ottaviani intervention and the personal intervention of Paul VI, the bare minimum of sacramental validity was ensured. We wouldn’t call it objectively evil, though we would argue the TLM is better. This some cannot accept in those of us hold to Trent and the the writings of St. Pius V through St. Gregory the Great.
St. Gregory, in his writing to John, Bishop of Syracuse he has a few comments on the liturgy of his day:
“Further, we neither have said nor now say the Kyrie Eleison, as it is said by the Greeks: for among the Greeks all say it together; but with us it is said by the clerks, and responded to by the people; and as often as it is said, Christe Eleison is said also, which is not said at all among the Greeks.” and later ” But also the Lord’s Prayer among the Greeks is said by all the people, but with us by the priest alone. ”
We clearly recognize the usage of St. Gregory in the TLM while some of the usages of the (Byzantine) Greeks was adopted in the novus ordo. Why should wanting to pray as St. Gregory did be suddenly held as wrong? Why would anyone have thought it a good idea to put one pope in contradiction to another? Should it be held against as De Fide that we must prefer the prayer of Paul VI over that of St. Gregory or St. Pius V or St. Pius X?
They are not content to let us charitably disagree and allow us to worship as our grandfathers did but insist on making us observe their ways despite the explicit intent of St. John Paul II in Ecclesia Dei that our attachment to previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition as rightful aspirations or that Benedict XVI assured us that what earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.
@WVC- I am not underemphasizing anything. The liturgical abuses pre-VII were bad enough that it was part of what prompted the Ecumenical Council to write Sacrosanctum Concilium in the first place. What’s more, as an example, the Parisians were toying around with moving the altar around to make it less “ad orientem” well before VII. You can attack me all you want and claim that I am somehow trying to diminish the despicable nature of post VII liturgical abuse however given that irreverence in Mass is sinful and skipping parts of the Mass (which happened pre VII) makes it illicit (which is a grave sin)… I’m not sure I see your point. It’s all sinful. Full stop.
@Lurker59 are you a canon lawyer or a clergy member? Have you been part of any of the discussions/dialogues, etc between the Vatican and SSPX? If not, then I’m curious how you get to decide whether the excommunications were inappropriate. Unfair? Yes. Unjust? Hard to say. Excommunication is, after all, intended to be spiritually medicinal rather than punitive in nature. It is intended to be a last resort call to repentance, a “jump start” of one’s conscience to draw them to repent and seek penance and return to full communion with Christ through Holy Mother Church.
OKC Catholic Dad: I echo your sentiments and am getting bothered by all the images that are floating around portraying a current valid form of the Latin rite Mass as basically ridiculous.
Many of the images could be AI, anyway, but still people love to gawk at them. Sad!
I’d attend any of these Masses before I stepped foot inside a building where I was sure there were illicit sacraments being confected. That is scary to me. At least with the goofy pastors, I know what’s going on. They’re allowed to say a public Mass, so no lacking spiritual authority issues to worry about. The real concern is when everything looks perfect, but upon closer inspection, it isn’t.
Roma247 writes: “The SSPX claims to believe that the Novus Ordo is a valid Mass. But then they write articles like this which contradict that statement. And they teach their faithful, in their schools and in the confessional, (and yes, I can PERSONALLY attest to this) that to attend the Novus Ordo is a SIN which must be confessed before receiving the Eucharist in their chapels.”
Thanks for your comment. The inconsistency you describe is troubling and it’s the reason why I refuse to read things they write. I might get lost. I’m sorry that you went through that awful confessional experience!
Attending a valid Mass=SIN?! I am at a loss for words.
@OKC Catholic Dad & @prayfatima
I don’t understand the cope that’s being employed here, but y’all are clearly not seeing things straight. It’s almost as bad as “the Mass is valid so nothing else matters” crowd. AI is being used to make the videos of clown Masses and dancing priests? Wishful thinking to the extreme. I was personally at a Holy Thursday Mass (with my fairly new wife at the time, who was planning to become Catholic), when the priest held up a boom box and played excerpts from “Godspell.” And, while liturgical abuse certainly existed before Vatican II, it’s simply a failure to comprehend meaningful distinctions to claim clown Masses and beach floatie Masses are of the same kind of abuse as priests speeding through the Latin. It’s like trying to equate spitting on someone with shooting them in the head. These are not abuses of different degrees – they are of different kinds. Full stop.
I’m also not sure what your point is. You want us to pretend that these abuses aren’t happening? As if the implementation of the Novus Ordo went off without a hitch. There has been absolutely nothing to restrict or hamper the implementation of the New Rite – the resistance against the liturgical change was appalling low. The Popes and Bishops and Cardinals have had an absolutely free hand to implement it. And this is what we got. Even the average Novus Ordo, sans dancing priests, is often a sad mix of the priest trying out happy-clappy informal language in between the ritual prayers. I grew up in the Novus Ordo. I went to the Novus Ordo for about half my life. I know of what I’m speaking.
So arguments that “if only the rubrics had been perfectly followed” ring hollow. Why weren’t they/aren’t they followed? What’s preventing it? I don’t see anything like this happening in any TLMs that I’ve attended over the past 20 years. There’s a larger problem at play, intrinsic with the Novus Ordo, that lead to these abominations. And while all the energy is being used to stamp out the TLM and excommunicate the SSPX, both jack and squat is being done to do anything about either these abuses or the inherent problems of the NO. Even Cardinal Sarah, Cardinal Arinze, and Pope Benedict recognized deficiencies in the Novus Ordo rubrics, not even considering all the liturgical abuses.
And these abominations and this mentality and this laxity is directly feeding the crisis by which the SSPX claims the need to take extraordinary actions. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the SSPX, I suggest the answer to the crisis is not to put one’s head in the sand.
And to say “I’d rather go to Mass with an LGBTQ+ activist priest passing out the Eucharist like frisbees than even step foot inside an SSPX chapel” is such a crazy position to take I can’t imagine how one could possibly defend it, especially in an age where popes have gone into mosques to pray. I don’t know what this is, but such a position is not concordant with the Catholic Faith.
If your position is that a Latin, ad orientem, chanted Novus Ordo Mass that uses the Roman Canon and plenty of Gregorian chant is intrinsically evil, and that attending such a Mass must be confessed before communing in an SSPX chapel… you’re not going to win many converts to the traditionalist cause.
Someone mentioned Eucharistic miracles that have occured at Novus Ordo Masses… that’s a great point.
The way I see it, the SSPX are talking out of both sides of their mouth. On one hand they profess to be obedient sons who commemorate the Pope in the mass, while also entirely rejecting his authority as established in canon law. It’s as if they want to be “sedes in communion with Rome,” which makes no sense.
At least sedes hold a consistent worldview: they say they do what they want because they believe there is no Pope. There can’t be, because Rome has defected and that is not possible if the Pope is valid.
And the FSSP/canonical church worldview is consistent: pastoral teaching and discipline is Rome’s prerogative, and even if we don’t always understand, it is for Peter to bind and loose.
The SSPX is not consistent because it assumes the Pope can fall into error and they get a veto over his judgments, whether it is fair in their eyes or not. (And no condemned heretic ever thought it was fair, so that’s not a valid standard. Even unjust excommunications are to be suffered in the manner of St. Paul.) In that, I don’t see why the SSPX is logically any different from the Old Catholics who departed after Vatican 1.
As I see it, to be consistent you have to either be in the church with Peter and accept that you will not always understand his judgments (as a child does not always understand the discipline of his father) or you have to be entirely out.
There is a place for these kinds of conversations, but it is between the Pope and his curia during the deliberative process. It is not for the rest of us after the judgement has been made.
It seems to me that if you have a mass that denies what has always been held about the Catholic Mass, that it is a pre-presentation of the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary and instead portrays the mass as just a commemoration of the Last Supper and a Protestant style meeting for worship, then this denial of basic truths that have been held in the Catholic Church from the beginning is intrinsically evil. The NO Mass can be at the same time valid AND promoting an evil which is the denial of fundamental Catholic truths.
I would recommend that anyone wanting to understand the flaws of the Novus Ordo Mass and why it can’t be fixed to read Dr. Peter Kwasnewski’s book “Close the Workshop”.
I didn’t have time to read all the previous comments. Two cents: The Church does have to be careful that any “reform of the reform” does not morph over time into simply another “eternal revolution,” a la the 20th century. True reform does not revolutionize or overthrow. We must be careful we do not imitate the tactics of our enemies, and thus become like them.
“You have heard it said, ‘an eye for an eye’… but I say to you, pray for your enemies…Blessed, blessed are you when they revile you and call you every kind of name for My sake. Truly I say, your reward in Heaven will be great.”
@Ages
“entirely rejecting his authority”
I’m not sure where you get this idea. Can you provide examples other than the recent consecrations? There are some very specific problems the SSPX has identified, but beyond those problems, which are consistent with problems that any normal person might have with regard to the way the understanding of Vatican II has been incorporated into the Church for the past 60 years, where have they “entirely rejected papal authority”? Specific examples are required to make such a broad accusation.
And, I’m sorry, the “even if it doesn’t make any sense you’re not allowed to question the pope” stance is not and has never been a valid part of the Catholic Faith. This is papalism, as if the Catholic Faith exists only based on what the current pope says or does. Popes have made mistakes. It’s a matter of historical fact. Popes have acted imprudently, and sometimes to the great detriment of the Church. Popes have been corrected, sometimes by great saints. And some saints have been wrongly persecuted by Church authorities, and yet they are recognized saints.
There was an LGBTQ+ activist Mass in St. Peter’s. There was an LGBTQ+ activist Mass in D.C. celebrated by the Cardinal. Saying we’re not allowed to reject let alone question these things does not make one a good and faithful Catholic. It makes on an aider and abettor of the enemies of the Church.
@OKC Catholic Dad
My degrees, my employment, nor my experience need not factor into it. Nor yours. Unless the law is applied equally, then its application, whether lax or harsh, is inherently unjust. You can go back to Aquinas, to Augustine, to Cicero for that understanding.
—>The liturgical abuses pre-VII were bad enough that it was part of what prompted the Ecumenical Council The correct definition of evil—lack of a due good— <— is overly plastic as everything this side of heaven is riddled with certain lacks of a due good. Many people are reading a strict definition of "intrinsically evil" into the document. That is not at all what the article says, neither in word nor in its own internal definitions.
Also, I want to call attention to the fact that before note 13 there is an editor's note — so who wrote this document? Is it in translation? It dates back to prior ot Aug 22, 2013.
Perhaps I view things a bit differently because I am a convert, because I have read Orthodox materials, and because I read patristics, I am used to polemical writings and understand that you write polemically for two reasons: 1. to force those sympathetic to make a choice for full acceptance. 2. to bait the opposition into overreacting in a way that proves your point.
I’ve been jumping the gun with my mouth since last week, so I won’t start typing a long winded rant.
But I will say when I cite the sign of peace and hand shaking, I’ve never had a lib disagree that V.O. is the superior form during cold and flu season.
I will make a simple comparison. the Novus Ordo is an ELECTRIC CAR.
The TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS is gas powered.
They are both vehicles but only one is an automobile
I believe Q-g8 is white’s winning move. Then, only the queen is available for black to move since advancing the pawn would result in an immediate mate and the king remains stuck where it is on the H file. The problem is that the black queen has no sufficiently good defensive moves, and as white next advances its g-pawn, checking the black king, the end comes in at most two more moves.