Should Traditional Catholics attend Motu Proprio Masses?

The following post will address whether traditional Catholics, fully aware of the crisis in the Church, ought to attend Traditional Masses said under the diocese or the Ecclesia Dei Commission.  This topic is important because many traditionalists are willing to freely attend Traditional Masses almost anywhere with the justification that “it’s the Mass”.  They will often flip-flop between attendance at, for example, an SSPX chapel and a diocesan church for often truly mysterious reasons.

This post is suggested to be read alongside my previous article this week(  I will begin by summarizing some key points from our previous post titled “Errors of Vatican II”:

“In order to obtain a proper perspective on this great crisis in the Church, it is necessary to know precisely its root cause.  The root cause is thus: Modernist errors being promoted “underground” since St. Pius X’s pontificate quickly gained acceptance or submission throughout virtually the entire Church as a result of the ambiguities and errors of the Second Vatican Council, the main fruit of which was the New mass.

This can be easily confused, however, because of the common “conservative”(but not fully traditional) Catholic mindset.  The “conservative” position essentially proposes that although there are some worrisome statements and ideas spreading in the Church, even now with the aid of Pope Francis himself(or maybe not), Vatican II and the New mass are fine as long as they are both interpreted correctly.  At most, there might be a few ambiguous sentences here and there, but a Catholic should simply interpret them correctly.  After all, how could the Holy Ghost have allowed error?  Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI are recognized as shining examples of orthodoxy; if only the Bishops under them would not have been so liberal.

Surely, dear readers, this may be a good start for a Catholic on the beginning of his journey towards Tradition, but he has not quite arrived at the full truth.  The fact of the matter is that Vatican II was convened as a “pastoral” Council, not a dogmatic one.  It has no binding, dogmatic force in itself.  The Holy Ghost does not necessarily protect such a Council from error, especially if he is shunned by many of its participants.  Modernist, Freemasonic errors were in fact proposed by “progressive” clergy and, in the end, included in the Council documents.  Every priest, bishop, and cardinal in the world was subsequently under heavy pressure to accept these documents with most of them unfortunately accepting or at least keeping silent.  In reality, there were only a few clergy who openly confronted this revolution. Many put themselves under the guidance and training of Abp. Lefebvre, who would form the Society of St. Pius X and establish many traditional monasteries and convents.  Others would remain faithful inside the diocesan structures, although often having to perform their priestly duties in a more “independent” manner.  All of these brave priests and bishops were constantly under attack for their providential stand.  May God bless, reward, and love them forever!

This perspective is also relevant since there are many traditional-leaning Orders in the Church who offer the Traditional Mass and more substantial doctrine, but had to accept all of Vatican II and the New Mass to be received “in full communion with Rome”.  On paper, the priests in these Orders cannot protest these errors and must remain, at least for the most part, silent on them.”

The question now to be answered is whether traditional Catholics may attend Masses of priests in this situation.  A couple of distinctions should briefly be addressed:

Some diocesan priests unfortunately approve various conciliar abuses straight from the Novus Ordo to be implemented in their Traditional Masses.  One common example is the giving of Communion in the hand.  Most of these novelties are sacrilegious and objectively a grave offense against God.  The situation described here is often hardly better than that of the New mass.  Traditional Catholics should definitely avoid attending these Masses, with the exception of passive attendance when allowed.

A few priests have managed to remain in the “official” Church structures and still oppose Vatican II and the New mass.  These priests often face heavy persecution from their liberal bishops and are subsequently forced to work “independently” due to illegal “suspensions”, while still remaining attached to their diocese or religious community.  Traditional Catholics may usually certainly attend the Masses of these good priests.

What then of the “middle ground” between these two sides?  To answer this question, some reliable Catholic sources will be consulted.

First, a general overview from SSPX U.S. District:

The problem with motu proprio Masses

July 19, 2013

The motu proprioSummorum Pontificum, officially ended the canonical struggle over the traditional Roman Mass—but is this the end of the fight for the Mass of All Time?

Since the motu proprio of 2007, Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI changed the juridical situation of the Mass stating that the traditional Mass has never been abrogated.

Thanks to this statement, the Mass has been reestablished as a universal law of the Church and can no longer be considered as prohibited or even as an exception: unfortunately, the expression “extraordinary form” used in themotu propio is misleading. Rome pretends that there are now two usages of the same Roman Rite: “both are the expression of the same lex orandi—rule of prayer—of the Church” (n.6).

Cardinal Stickler wrote in 2004 on the intervention of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci:

The analysis of the Novus Ordo made by these two cardinals has lost none of its value nor, unfortunately, of its relevance…. The results of the reform are considered by many today to be devastating… they discovered very quickly that the change of the rites led to a fundamental change of doctrine.”

And the SSPX seriously questions, if not its validity in principle, then at least the “legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria” (n.19), since it is so difficult, as Cardinal Ottaviani had already noted in 1969, to consider the Mass of St. Pius V and that of Paul VI to be in the same “apostolic and unbroken tradition” (no. 3).

The document is contradictory in that it excludes those priests who are most attached to the traditional Mass and refuse to be bi-ritual. The contradiction is shown also in the exclusion of the old rite of priestly ordination although this point flies in the face of the principle recalled in n. 3 concerning adherence to “the usages universally handed down by apostolic and unbroken tradition.”

Practically-speaking, the bishops continue to limit the celebration of the traditional Mass by seeking to grant a permission which is no longer necessary, oftentimes in addition to other arbitrary conditions. Thus as we pray that the “Mass of All Time” may be given quickly the monopoly it should never have lost in the Latin Church, nevertheless we cannot but give a strong warning against the regular attendance at such diocesan masses under the present circumstances.

Are we not open to the generalization of the old Mass? Yes, of course, but in the terms of the non-ambiguous condemnation of the New Mass and of the errors of Vatican II which is preached boldly over many of today’s pulpits.

We cannot but feel taken aback as we see the two altars, old and new clashing in the sanctuary and the server extinguishing the candles of the Novus Ordo table to light those of the altar behind!

Certainly we cannot counsel our faithful to regularly participate in the Masses celebrated by priests of dubious doctrinal orthodoxy, even when offered reverentially. We must also warn them to not receive Holy Communion from a ciborium consecrated in the Novus Ordo Missae—for this is the Sacrament of unity and we cannot be in union with a theologically-deficient rite! There is also the constant danger of a strange confusion of rite and improper behavior which is so common in the mainstream churches and their accompanying irreverent rites.

For these reasons and so many others which you will easily discover even from occasional visits to your local motu proprio Mass or in talking with “conciliar trads”, why we think it is not advisable to regularly attend the “extraordinary form” offered by the diocese or under the aegis of the Ecclesia Dei Commission. After all, we have not been fighting for over 40 years against the modernist tsunami, only to be washed away by an ebb tide.”


A further explanation from Fr. Peter Scott and Abp. Marcel Lefebvre:



But, you might say, surely we can attend these Masses. They will be traditional Masses. They are not Indult Masses, for they no longer presume a special indult or permission, but are based upon the correct principle that the traditional rite was never abrogated. The Motu proprio itself does not attach any explicit and unacceptable conditions, as did the Indult. This delicate question can be resolved on two levels, one doctrinal and one liturgical. The first consideration is doctrinal. If we have won a battle for the celebration of the true Mass, we have not yet won it with respect to the profession of the true Faith, uncontaminated by the errors of Vatican II. Our attendance at Mass must be a profession of this true Faith, whole and entire. Hence the obligation of assisting at the Masses of those priests who stand up against the errors of Vatican II and refuse the idea of “non rupture”.

The second consideration is liturgical. Benedict XVI assures the Novus Ordo bishops of their ultimate control:“Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop…the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene”. Furthermore, he encourages the assistance at each of the two opposed rites. In fact, he goes so far as to propose that they be mixed in the same celebration, a confusing desecration not even permitted under the Indult: “For that matter, the two forms of the usage of the Roman rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal.” The mind boggles at the consequences of such a principle, the practical application of which the Ecclesia Dei commission is supposed to study. The principle of alternating and mixing celebrations seems important to the Pope to establish non rupture between the two “uses”. However, it would inevitably greatly weaken the traditional Faith and the convictions of the faithful. It is for this reason that Archbishop Lefebvre, when giving profound reasons why our faithful ought not to attend the Indult Mass, pointed out that they must not attend the traditional Masses of those priests who still celebrate the New Mass, and who are not determined to combat the evils of the New Mass. These were his precise words in 1985:

“Generally speaking, we counsel the faithful against attending the Mass of those priests who have abandoned the combat against the New Mass. It is much to be feared that one day they will be obliged by their bishop to also celebrate the New Mass, to celebrate both Mass, and even to concelebrate, to accept giving Communion in the hand and of celebrating Mass facing the people. All of these things are entirely repugnant to us, and that is the reason why we counsel the faithful not at attend the Masses of these priests…As for us, it is always the same advice: we think that one ought not to go to these Masses because it is dangerous to affirm that the New Mass is just as good as the old one.” (Quoted in La messe de toujours, p. 431)

These words apply absolutely literally to the situation of Masses celebrated by non-traditional priests in parishes under this Motu proprio. As much good as such Masses will certainly do for those who are still in the NovusOrdo, and as much as we ought to encourage our Novus Ordo acquaintances to request their celebration, so much ought our faithful not to attend, even if they have no other Sunday Mass available. It would be an unacceptable compromise to attend the Masses of priests of the new rite, who celebrate and administer sacraments according to the new rite, or who are at least willing to do so. It would be precisely to cooperate in the Holy Father’s iniquitous policy of a reconciliatory non-rupture, a clever way to mix a little honey with the bitter pill of Vatican II, so that we might swallow it down without even realizing it.

Let not these realistic considerations, however, dampen the gratitude that Bishop Fellay requests that we have towards Almighty God first, and Archbishop Lefebvre second, who have permitted this victory. The Good Lord will bring much more good out of it than we could imagine, and will draw souls to the unchanging truth of Catholic Tradition.”

There may be some exceptions to this general rule.  One possible exception might be to encourage a prelate who is literally on the cusp of embracing full Tradition.  Some Catholics protest this position, noting that the only Traditional Masses accessible to them from their hometown(long-term) are Motu Proprio Masses.  For those in this situation, it is recommended to seek the advice of a trusted Traditional priest and above all to use good Catholic common sense in satisfying their Sunday duty.

Many traditional Catholics will criticize this entire approach, saying that we must tone down any “rhetoric” to be charitable to our traditional brothers.  This Sept. 1990 quote from Abp. Lefebvre refutes this objection: “’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! They are shaking hands with the Church’s destroyers, with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil’s work.”  Charity, yes, but compromise with the ‘conciliar’ church, no!

On this “unity” advocated for, which the SSPX and the Ecclesia Dei Orders already possess in reality, this is an excellent piece by Angelus Press’ Mark Riddle:


“In a recent article, a traditional Catholic blogger made a call for what can only be described as a superficial unity among the two camps in the traditional Catholic movement – those aligned with the Society of St. Pius X, and those aligned with the Ecclesia Dei communities, which themselves grew out of the first camp (in most cases).

We must ask ourselves, first presented with such a call, to what unity is the author appealing? It can’t be a unity of worship – this is present already as both camps celebrate the immemorial Mass exclusively, at least theoretically (though admittedly the understanding and defense of that Mass differs greatly). It can’t be a unity of governance – despite the arguments given against the Society, it is beyond dispute that both sides are firmly in the bosom of the Church, and are in union with the Sovereign Pontiff and the hierarchy throughout the world. Finally, it can’t be a question of the unity of doctrine, because while the defense of the Faith differs in both degree and kind between the two camps, neither accuses the other, at a structural level, of heterodoxy.

So, if the two camps already share the unity of fellow Catholics, and it would be foolish to deny that they do, what kind of unity is sought?

It would seem the unity for which he calls is a sort of détente between the two camps – a “you’re OK, I’m OK” approach to the traditional Catholic movement (term used for lack of a better one). In this concept, both camps are positively ordained by God to the roles which they currently play: The Society to play the role of “bad cop” ever presenting to Rome the Church’s perennial teachings to help prevent further doctrinal chaos, the Ecclesia Dei communities to present to Rome – and the average Catholic in the pew – a picture of the vibrancy of Tradition from within normal canonical life. And yet, this is little more than a false oasis. Take a closer look and as the clouds move and the light shifts, the Edenic vision fades leaving behind nothing but desert sand. It is all an illusion.

While I stated above – and it would be difficult to deny – that both camps share a unity of doctrine – neither ascribing openly or at the organizational level to any non-Catholic doctrine, we must ask – is there a correct approach to the present crisis gripping the Church?

From the founding of the Society of St. Pius X and the affiliated groups aligned for Tradition, there was a relatively coherent and united approach – defend the True Faith against those who would abandon and attack it, even to the point of rebuking prelates, even the Sovereign Pontiff when his actions were objectively opposed to the perennial teaching of the Church.

This defense of the Faith required both this “negative” approach – condemning scandal and error for the sake of the faithful, and constantly, a “positive” approach – promoting the constant teaching of the Church, especially when it came to the rights of Our Lord Jesus Christ, so trampled by ecumenism and religious liberty.

This defense culminated in an earthquake – the canonically illegal and morally reprehensible “suspension” of 1976. But this is the key point. For 12 years, from then until the consecrations of bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre, his sons remained with him. Let us consider the consequences of that for a moment.

These same priests who today reject the validity of the confessions heard and marriages witnessed by the Society, were themselves hearing confession and witnessing marriages, all the while operating under the appearance of a suspension a divinis.

Today, those same priests who argue that the Society acts disobediently, that the Society’s lack of canonical regularity (through no fault of its own) is itself a crime worthy of condemnation, operated for over a decade “disobediently” and “without canonical regularity.”

It was the consecrations that separated them from the Archbishop. Until then they followed him in his fight for the Faith. That was a bridge too far. All good and well – at least from the perspective of the article in question – assuming those same priests maintained their defense of the Faith – warning the faithful of the grave scandal which ever more emanates from the Sovereign Pontiff and the hierarchy who assist him in the Church’s governance.

But that this is not the case is evident to everyone! Where was the public defense of the Faith in light of the later Assisi meetings? Where the cry to the faithful against the erroneous push for religious liberty among the U.S. Bishops? One priestly society in the “Ecclesia Dei camp” even takes its young faithful to the scandalous World Youth Days held every few years[SC- The Author may be referring to this: ].

Shared parishes, silence on doctrinal matters, participation in diocesan events, money to diocesan ventures contrary to the Faith: the list goes on forever.

To be clear, this is a painful piece to write. I am personally grateful and happy for the work done by the priests of these groups in promoting the traditional Mass, and in exposing many of the faithful throughout the world to the beauties of true Catholic liturgical life. The solid moral foundation offered by these priests is a balm to souls in an ecclesial environment gone mad, but let us at least be honest with one another.

There is no point in pretending that “I’m okay – you’re okay.” The Society and those orders aligned with it have maintained a constant defense of the Faith for 40+ years, weathering the abuse of prelates and false friends, to this day continually attacked for refusing to burn incense in front of the modernist gods of religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality. Deo Gratias. It is the will of God, and God will determine when He will end this crisis.

But let us not pretend that soldiers who have gone into a retreat are fighting the same battle as those holding the line. If they were, the situation would be much different.

Please God, the day may soon come when all may stand together in the fight. Today, sadly, that is not the case.”


H.E. Bp. Bernard Fellay: “First of all, all the Ecclesia Dei members understand that if we would not have had bishops, they would not exist. Directly or indirectly, they depend on the Society’s life. That is very, very clear. And now the fruits of their apostolates are totally subjected to the good will of the local bishops. They drastically limit any solid desire to establish traditional Catholic life by limiting the possibilities of the apostolate in that direction. They are obliged to mix with the novelties of Vatican II, the world, and the Novus Ordo. This is the great difference between the Society and Ecclesia Dei groups.

I do see that some Ecclesia Dei groups are getting closer to us. This is definitely not all of them, though.”


A few other highly recommended resources:

Fr. Nicholas Gruner and Fr. Paul Kramer on the FSSP:
Canon Gregory Hesse on the SSPX vs. Ecclesia Dei Orders:
An excellent, strong, and balanced letter from Fr. Arnaud Rostand, SSPX, regarding Summorum Pontificum and our attendance at Motu Proprio Masses:
An insightful article from Laramie Hirsch:
On the Paul VI rites of ordination and consecration, which most of these priests are ordained under(to help settle confusion in this regard):
Sources used in the post:
~ Steven C.




12 thoughts on “Should Traditional Catholics attend Motu Proprio Masses?

  1. Mark Thomas

    “The fact of the matter is that Vatican II was convened as a “pastoral” Council, not a dogmatic one. It has no binding, dogmatic force in itself. The Holy Ghost does not necessarily protect such a Council from error, especially if he is shunned by many of its participants. Modernist, Freemasonic errors were in fact proposed by “progressive” clergy and, in the end, included in the Council documents.”

    Sorry, but the above is at odds with the Faith of the True Church. The True Church teaches that the Second Sacred Vatican Ecumenical Council is Her 21 Ecumenical Council. The True Church teaches that the Council is free of errors.


    Mark Thomas


  2. Mark Thomas

    To be precise in regard to my prior comment, I do not mean that it’s false to state that there is a pastoral aspect to the Second Sacred Vatican Ecumenical Council.

    I also recognize that the Second Sacred Vatican Ecumenical Council is not a “Super Council.”

    But the notion that Vatican II was a Masonic, error-filled event is false. Vatican II is what it is…the True Church’s 21st Ecumenical Council.

    The One True Church who gave us Vatican II is the same One True Church who gave us Vatican I, Trent, etc. The holy Magisterium who assures us that Vatican II is orthodox is the Magisterium of All-Time.

    That said, Catholics, SSPX or otherwise, are free to discuss (in charitable Catholic fashion) the efficacy of Vatican II’s pastoral elements. But that is a far cry from claiming that Vatican II is Masonic…heretical…blasphemous…

    A Catholic is free to discuss (charitably) as to whether Vatican II achieved the goals of the Conciliar Fathers. But to attribute heresy to the Fathers in question is a different matter.

    A Catholic, for example, is free to discuss the merits of Pope Venerable Pius XII’s radical reforms. Example: Did Pope Venerable Pius XII’s alterations to the traditional Midnight Eucharistic Fast achieve the pastoral results that he desired?

    Should the Church discard Pope Venerable Pius XII’s novel three-hour Eucharistic Fast (not to mention Pope Blessed Paul VI’s one-hour Eucharistic Fast)? Should the Church restore as binding upon Her children the traditional Midnight Eucharistic Fast?

    Those are legitimate questions/topics to discuss (in charitable fashion). But that differs radically from declaring said reforms enacted by Popes Venerable Pius XII and Blessed Paul VI “heretical”…”Masonic”…etc.

    The same principle applies to the Second Sacred Vatican Ecumenical Council. Catholics are free to discuss charitably Vatican II. But they are not free to attribute evil and heresy to Holy Mother Church’s 21 Ecumenical Council as Holy Mother Church recognizes Vatican II as orthodox.

    The Church of Rome has made it clear that Vatican II is orthodox. Anybody who declares otherwise has pronounced against Holy Mother Church.


    Mark Thomas


  3. Mark Thomas

    H.E. Bp. Bernard Fellay: “First of all, all the Ecclesia Dei members understand that if we would not have had bishops, they would not exist. Directly or indirectly, they depend on the Society’s life. That is very, very clear.”

    I would call the following to Bishop Fellay’s attention: “All the Ecclesia Dei members” as well as the SSPX depend upon God for their existence. The Society’s life depends upon God.

    In turn, God established His Holy Catholic Church. Rather than inflate the SSPX’s status, Bishop Fellay should have called attention to the fact that the SSPX, Ecclesia Dei “members”…each of us…depends upon God’s Holy Catholic Church for our existence

    The reality is that long before the SSPX was established, there were bishops and priests who had kept the TLM alive. The SSPX is actually a late-comer to the Traditional Catholic Movement.

    I respect Bishop Fellay in many ways. Unfortunately, I found his above statement open to charitable debate.

    Rather than point to this or that person or priestly society as the reason why this or that TLM-related community exists, I prefer to give thanks unto God and His Holy Catholic Church for the existence of said communities.


    Mark Thomas


    1. rescuedbymary


      The Vatican 2ew council has ruined the whole world…

      I know you get this, just won’t admit it, apparently… Pity.

      Why else would be spamming the Damsel…?



      1. Mark Thomas

        1. I never said that the Second Sacred Vatican Ecumenical Council proved successful in having achieved the results hoped for by Pope Saint John XIII.

        2. I have stated that Ecumenical Councils have not always proved successful.

        3. It is one thing to argue that an Ecumenical Council has “failed”…but it’s another thing to declare that an Ecumenical Council pronounced orthodox by the Church’s Magisterium is filled with errors and heresies.

        4. The Church’s Magisterium, and nobody else, is empowered by God to render judgment upon Vatican II’s orthodoxy.

        5. The Magisterium has pronounced Vatican II as orthodox. That is all that I’ve indicated in regard to Vatican II. The True Church has pronounced Vatican II as orthodox.

        6. Rather than have attacked me, you should have read my comments. You haven’t read a single comment of mine that declared Vatican II a success.

        7. I don’t spam Damsel’s blog. I have thanked her for her many beautiful and uplifting posts. I found, for example, Damsel’s recent post on the Saint Benedict Cross/Medal beautiful and important.

        In regard to Steven C’s posts, I believe that I have always engaged him respectfully. In turn, he has conducted himself in charitable Catholic fashion.

        I have respected Damsel and Steven C. I have respected and praised their blog. I have played by their rules as this is their blog.

        I will translate your comment about my supposed “spamming” of Damsel’s blog: You don’t like my comments. However, if I marched in lockstep with your opinions, you would have said…”Mark Thomas, please continue to post replies to Damsel’s blog.”

        Anyway, I respect Damsel and Steve C. I will refrain from posting comments to Damsel’s blog should they wish me to leave here.

        At any rate, I will continue to pray that His Holiness Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay, two fantastic men of God, will forge lasting peace between Rome and the SSPX.

        The SSPX has been treated unjustly by various elements within the Church. In turn, the SSPX has had its share of negative elements within its midst.

        But Bishop Fellay has done well in having purged the Society of some the SSPX’s negative elements. Once regularized, the SSPX will flourish as never before within Holy Mother Church.

        Deo gratias! Let us pray for Pope Francis, Bishop Fellay, and the holy Catholics attached to the SSPX.


        Mark Thomas


    2. Steven C. Post author

      “The Magisterium has pronounced Vatican II as orthodox. That is all that I’ve indicated in regard to Vatican II. The True Church has pronounced Vatican II as orthodox.”

      This is precisely the main point on which we differ. We state that Vatican II was quite a novelty in that it actually did not bind the Church’s Magisterium on any level:

      “Not by reason of the extraordinary magisterium, for it refused to define anything. Pope Paul VI himself, in an audience on January 12, 1966, said that it “had avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas affected by the mark of infallibility.” (cf. the declaration of the Theological Commission of March 6, 1964, and repeated by the Council’s General Secretary on November 16, 1964: “In view of conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.” It never did.)

      Nor by reason of the ordinary universal magisterium, because this is not a defining power, but one of passing on what was always believed. The “universality” in question is not just one of place (all bishops) but also of time (always) (cf. Vatican I and principle 6).

      Nor even by reason of the simply authentic magisterium, because the object of all magisterium is the deposit of faith to be guarded sacredly and expounded faithfully (Vatican I, Denzinger 1836), and not to adopt as Catholic doctrine the “best expressed values of two centuries of ‘liberal culture,’” even if they are “purified” (Cardinal Ratzinger, Gesu, November 1984, p. 72; cf. Gaudium et Spes, §§11, 44).”

      Just because the clergy in Rome call a meeting does not mean it falls under infallibility. On the contrary, when the Councils of the Church that were binding the Church’s Magisterium stated something contrary to Vatican II, that is what I am obligated to recognize as what the True Church has declared as orthodox.


      1. Steven C. Post author

        Also, a short except from one of John Salza’s articles:

        “If a council teaches heresy or error outside of her Extraordinary, or Ordinary and
        Universal Magisterium, the gates of hell have not prevailed against the Church. If Fr. Harrison’s
        contention were true, then the Church would have been finished at the Council of Florence
        (1438-1445) when that council made a doctrinal error on the matter of the sacrament of Holy
        Orders, which was corrected by Pope Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis (1947). No, Fr. Harrison, the gates of hell did not prevail against the Church in 1965. But they sure did prevail against the treasonous council of Vatican II, for the Church had already condemned the “blatant heresy” of religious liberty and ecumenism that the council Fathers nevertheless adopted in their nonbinding, “pastoral” documents.”


  4. Mark Thomas

    “From the founding of the Society of St. Pius X and the affiliated groups aligned for Tradition, there was a relatively coherent and united approach – defend the True Faith against those who would abandon and attack it, even to the point of rebuking prelates, even the Sovereign Pontiff when his actions were objectively opposed to the perennial teaching of the Church.”

    It is interesting that throughout Church history, the rebukers have, in their minds, ever been wrong. The Church of Rome is wrong…always Rome…but the rebukers are never wrong.

    The rebukers never accept rebukes. When rebuked by God’s holy Magisterium, the rebukers simply claim that they are right…the Church of Rome is wrong.


    Mark Thomas


    1. Steven C. Post author

      Scott, thank you for your question.

      All Traditional Masses are valid in that the sacrifice takes place. There’s no ambiguity here, unlike the New mass. I’m only mentioning because I find sometimes Catholics confuse the terms “valid” and “licit”.

      However, there is one exception. Sometimes there might be a doubt with abuses introduced into the already illicit new rite of ordination composed by Pope Paul VI. If you are unaware, here’s an explanation: .

      You may wish to check these websites: A list of recommended chapels and Mass centers from the SSPX. These give all of the Traditional Mass locations for each state. The affiliation is also given(diocese, SSPX, sedevacantist, etc.)

      Since you seem to live in the Las Vegas area, I can direct to some Traditional Masses there:

      Our Lady of Victory Church(SSPX-this is the one I would most recommend):

      1575 E. Windmill Lane
      Las Vegas, NV 89123

      Sun 7:30am & 10:00am
      Sat 6:00pm | 1st Sat 8:00am
      1st Fri 6:00pm | Holy Days 6:00pm

      St. Joseph Church(Independent-not sure what that means):
      131 N. 9th St.
      Las Vegas, NV 89101

      St. Rose Hospital Chapel(Diocese):
      No address given
      Henderson, NV 89011



Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s