The Recusant

Are you still attending the conciliar SSPX? Are you aware that many people, often those who were the heart and soul of their parish, have left the SSPX in the last couple of years? Our friends over at Catholic Candle recently published the following excellent and very timely letter.

"We are writing to explain why we no longer attend the Masses of the SSPX or give them any support of any kind..."

Read more here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B49oPuI54eEGMnFPTWVVNlQ4bms/view

...and please consider printing off to give to those you know who are still in the SSPX.

1917 Code of Canon Law:

Can 2359

§1. Clerics in holy orders, whether they be secular or religious, who are living in concubinage, when a prior warning has proved useless, are to be compelled to withdraw from the illicit companionship and to repair the scandal by suspension (suspensio a divinis), by being deprived of the fruits of office, benefits, dignity, with due regard to the provisions of Canons 2176-2181.

§ 2. If an offense against the sixth commandment with minors under sixteen years of age be admitted, or if adultery, rape, bestiality, sodomy, pimping or incest with first degree relations be carried out, they are to be suspended, declared infamous and deprived of every office, benefit, dignity and function that they might have and in the more serious cases, deposed.

§ 3. If they have committed an offense against the sixth commandment in some other way, they are to be coerced with appropriate penalties according to the gravity of the case, not excluding deprivation of office or benefit, especially if they have care of souls.

(§1. Clerici in sacris sive saeculares sive religiosi concubinarii, monitione inutiliter praemissa, cogantur ab illicito contubernio recedere et scandalum reparare suspensione a divinis, privatione fructuum officii, beneficii, dignitatis, servato praescripto can. 2176-2181.

§2. Si delictum admiserint contra sextum decalogi praeceptum cum minoribus infra aetatem sexdecim annorum, vel adulterium, stuprum, bestialitatem, sodomiam, lenocinium, incestum cum consanguineis aut affinibus in primo gradu exercuerint, suspendantur, infames declarentur, quolibet officio, beneficio, dignitate, munere, si quod habeant, priventur, et in casibus gravioribus deponantur.

§3. Si aliter contra sextum decalogi praeceptum deliquerint, congruis poenis secundum casus gravitatem coerceantur, non excepta officii vel beneficii privatione, maxime si curam animarum gerant.)

Fourth Lateran Council:

"

14. Clerical incontinence

In order that the morals and conduct of clerics may be reformed for the better, let all of them strive to live in a continent and chaste way, especially those in holy orders. Let them beware of every vice involving lust, especially that on account of which the wrath of God came down from heaven upon the sons of disobedience, so that they may be worthy to minister in the sight of almighty God with a pure heart and an unsullied body. Lest the ease of receiving pardon prove an incentive to sin, we decree that those who are caught giving way to the vice of incontinence are to be punished according to canonical sanctions, in proportion to the seriousness of their sins. We order such sanctions to be effectively and strictly observed, in order that those whom the fear of God does not hold back from evil may at least be restrained from sin by temporal punishment. Therefore anyone who has been suspended for this reason and presumes to celebrate divine services, shall not only be deprived of his ecclesiastical benefices but shall also, on account of his twofold fault, be deposed in perpetuity. Prelates who dare to support such persons in their wickedness, especially if they do it for money or for some other temporal advantage, are to be subject to like punishment. Those clerics who have not renounced the marriage bond, following the custom of their region, shall be punished even more severely if they fall into sin, since for them it is possible to make lawful use of matrimony."

St. Thomas Aquinas:

"Heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin. Hence we read in John's Second Canonical Epistle (11) that "He that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works." Consequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to assist at their mass.

Still there is a difference among the above, because heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church's sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore whoever hears their mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin. But not all who are sinners are debarred by the Church's sentence from using this power: and so, although suspended by the Divine sentence, yet they are not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical sentence: consequently, until the Church's sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass. Hence on 1 Corinthians 5:11, "with such a one not so much as to eat," Augustine's gloss runs thus: "In saying this he was unwilling for a man to be judged by his fellow man on arbitrary suspicion, or even by usurped extraordinary judgment, but rather by God's law, according to the Church's ordering, whether he confess of his own accord, or whether he be accused and convicted."

[…]

By refusing to hear the masses of such priests, or to receive Communion from them, we are not shunning God's sacraments; on the contrary, by so doing we are giving them honor (hence a host consecrated by such priests is to be adored, and if it be reserved, it can be consumed by a lawful priest): but what we shun is the sin of the unworthy ministers."

      - Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q.82, Article 9 ("Whether it is permissible to receive communion from heretical, excommunicate or sinful priests, and to hear Mass said by them?")  Respondeo et seq.

St. Peter Damian:

“… I would surely prefer to be thrown into the well like Joseph who informed his father of his brothers’ foul crime, than to suffer the penalty of God’s fury, like Eli, who saw the wickedness of his sons and remained silent. (Sam 2:4) … Who am I, when I see this pestilential practice flourishing in the priesthood to become the murderer of another’s soul by daring to repress my criticism in expectation of the reckoning of God’s judgement? … How, indeed, am I to love my neighbour as myself if I negligently allow the wound, of which I am sure he will brutally die, to fester in his heart? … “So let no man condemn me as I argue against this deadly vice, for I seek not to dishonour, but rather to promote the advantage of my brother’s well-being. “Take care not to appear partial to the delinquent while you persecute him who sets him straight. If I may be pardoned in using Moses’ words, ‘Whoever is for the Lord, let him stand with me.’ (Ezek 32:26)

    - Letter 31, ‘Liber Gomorrhianus’

Even the modern concilliar Church has the following to say:

1983 Code of Canon Law:

"Canon 1395 §2. A cleric who in another way has committed an offense against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, if the delict was committed by force or threats or publicly or with a minor below the age of sixteen years, is to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants."

Fr. Suneel (third from right) was ordained on Sunday 30th August, 2015 by Bishop Faure, in India. More photos can be found over at 'Reconquista', here. Deo Gratias! Please remember him in your prayers...

Our friends over at Reconquista alert us to the following letter, signed by Pope Francis, to the "Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangilisation". It can be found on the vatican.va website in English, here. Most interesting is the final paragraph, which reads:

"A final consideration concerns those faithful who for various reasons choose to attend churches officiated by priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X. This Jubilee Year of Mercy excludes no one. From various quarters, several Brother Bishops have told me of their good faith and sacramental practice, combined however with an uneasy situation from the pastoral standpoint. I trust that in the near future solutions may be found to recover full communion with the priests and superiors of the Fraternity. In the meantime, motivated by the need to respond to the good of these faithful, through my own disposition, I establish that those who during the Holy Year of Mercy approach these priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins."

Clearly SSPX confessions were always valid. That is not the point. And it is not the place of modernist apostates to "show mercy" towards those who have been keeping the Faith. The SSPX in the past would have pointed this out. Remember, for example, that in 1988 the Chapter members of the SSPX all wrote an Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin asking to be "excommunicated" from the conciliar church too!

"We have never wished to belong to this system which calls itself the Conciliar Church, and defines itself with the Novus Ordo Missæ, an ecumenism which leads to indifferentism and the laicization of all society. Yes, we have no part, nullam partem habemus..."

...And they wrote, concerning the supposed "excommunications" of 1988:

"We let you judge for yourself the value of such a declaration, coming from an authority who, in its exercise, breaks with all its predecessors down to Pope Pius XII, in worship, teaching and government of the Church."

Such a response from the SSPX today is unthinkable. What will their response be to this "merciful" gesture of Pope Francis? It seems likely that they will respond with gratitude and Te Deums, thereby appearing to implicitly admit that their confessions were invalid up to this point, just as they did in 2009 when they expressed their gratitude for the supposed "lifting" of the non-existent "excommunications" of 1988.

.o

Why else is this significant? What does it mean for the future of SSPX/Rome? What is happening in our opinion is that the agreement is being achieved by slow stages, one step at a time.

.

Any agreement would essentially have to be made of two parts, quid pro quo. The 'quid' is that the SSPX officially ceases to oppose Vatican II and no longer believes in the conciliar church, seeing it as no different to the Catholic Church. This has already taken place (April 2012, July 2012, June 2013, etc.). The 'quo' is the canonical recognition so desired by the betrayers at the top of the SSPX. Most people will pay little attention to doctrine, but the danger is that they would wake up if the SSPX were granted its 'quo', its reward for the beterayal, all in one go. The strategy, therefore, seems to be to achieve it a little at a time. The canonical recognition of the SSPX in Argentina set a precedent. The reaction was relatively mute. Now comes the granting of conciliar 'jurisdiction' for confessions. Watch for the reaction (or lack thereof). By the time the 'official agreement' in all its glory is complete, it will no longer seem like such a big thing. Watch out! Wake up! Start resisting before it is too late!

.

"These past few years, the SSPX superiors have unsuccessfully tried to make our Order align itself to their new Roman policy outlined in the Doctrinal Declaration of 15th April 2012, and in the Declaration of the General Chapter of 14th July 2012." 

...

.

The full text of the declaration of the 22nd General Chapter of the Knights of Our Lady can be found in our archives, or by going here. 

.

A useful article concerning attendance at the New Mass recently appeared on the website of the Avrillé Dominicans, which we quote from below. The full article may be found here: http://www.dominicansavrille.us/attendance-at-the-new-mass/

Is it permitted to take part in the New Mass?

Even if the New Mass is valid, it displeases God in so far as it is ecumenical and protestant. Besides that, it represents a danger for the faith in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It must therefore be rejected. Whoever understands the problem of the New Mass must no longer assist at it, because he puts voluntarily his faith in danger, and, at the same time, encourages others to do the same in appearing to give his assent to the reforms.

How can a valid Mass displease God?

Even a sacrilegious Mass celebrated by an apostate priest to mock Christ can be valid. It is however evident that it offends God, and it would not be permitted to take part in it. In the same way, the Mass of a Greek Schismatic (valid and celebrated according a venerable rite) displeases God insofar as it is celebrated in opposition to Rome and to the unique Church of Christ.

Can one attend the New Mass however when it is celebrated in a worthy and pious manner by a Catholic priest with a faith that is absolutely certain?

It is not the celebrant who is called into question, but the rite that he is using. It is unfortunately a fact that the new rite has given very many Catholics a false notion of the Mass, which is closer to that of the protestant last supper than that of the Holy Sacrifice. The new Mass is one of the principal sources of the current crises of the faith. It is therefore imperative that we distance ourselves from it.

Can one assist at the new Mass in certain circumstances?

We must apply to the new Mass the same rules we use for the attendance at a non-Catholic ceremony. One can be present for family or professional reasons, but one behaves passively, and especially does not receive Holy Communion.

Bishop Faure recently visited the Resistance in Australia to administer the sacrament of confirmation to many souls who had been patiently waiting for last 18 months. Deo Gratias.

.

Some pictures of confirmations in Tynong can been found here. 

A video of the start of confirmations and sermon at Brisbane can be seen below.

.

From the website REX! comes news about the Czech Resistance Pilgrimage which took place last weekend, to the shrine of St. John Nepomuk, a priest who was martyred in 1393 for refusing to break the seal of confession.

Fr. Martin Fuchs preached a sermon on the seal of confession to around 20 souls who were present at the Pilgrimage church for Mass on Sunday. An English translation of the sermon and some more photos can be seen here.

.