(Summary: Examining & responding to Christine Niles’ anti-SSPX activism)
What Now, Christine?
Niles, has fired yet another salvo at the SSPX.
Full disclaimer: (1) I do not represent the SSPX as their official spokesperson. My personal views on this matter are intended to be a common sense, practical break-down of Niles’ theological meanderings. (2) For the purpose of this blog, I refer only to the video (excerpt) posted to Niles’ Twitter account,
Is the Novus Ordo Mass valid?
“[The SSPX claim is that] no matter what the circumstances, no matter how carefully the priest follows the rubrics or how reverently he offers the Mass, the new Mass is still intrinsically evil in and of itself.
This [The SSPX claim] goes far beyond legality. This goes straight to validity.”
Never mind what the SSPX, I, or anyone else has to say on this subject. The document published by the SSPX provides citations to Cardinal Ottaviani & Cardinal Antonio Bacci, the former who may I remind Niles, was the Vatican’s chief doctrinal guardian as the secretary of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, and Pro-Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith under the papacies of Pius XII and Paul VI respectively. These two actual theologians had this to say of the Novus Ordo in the Ottaviani Intervention (OI), which is also cited, & referenced in the SSPX article which I repeat herein:
“It is clear that the Novus Ordo no longer intends to present the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent… It represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent[…]”
Note further that footnote 29 of the OI, in relation to chapter IV (The Essence), says:
As they appear in the context of the Novus Ordo, the words of Consecration could be valid in virtue of the priest’s intention. But since their validity no longer comes from the force of the sacramental words themselves (ex vi verborum)–or more precisely, from the meaning (modus significandi) the old rite of the Mass gave to the formula–the words of Consecration in the New Order of Mass could also not be valid. Will priests in the near future, who receive no traditional formation and who rely on the Novus Ordo for the intention of “doing what the Church does,” validly consecrate at Mass? One may be allowed to doubt it. (emphasis mine)
The validity of the Novus Ordo was thus already questioned by the highest doctrinal office in the Vatican. So right from the get-go, it is clear that there were doubts (at the very least) about the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass.
Is the Novus Ordo Mass ‘evil’?
The SSPX considers the Novus Ordo, not just harmful, but intrinsically evil. This is directly from their website, from an article titled, “Is the New Mass legit?” Quote, “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.” In other words, it (the New Mass) is inherently evil, intrinsically evil, entirely apart from the circumstances.
One needs to understand the context of the SSPX’s viewing of the New Mass as evil. The SSPX article lists three aspects in context to this claim:
- The theology of the Paschal Mystery (of the Novus Ordo) sets itself in opposition to a truth of the Catholic Faith (the doctrine of vicarious satisfaction is cited).
- The Novus Ordo Mass is considered as a sacrifice (by its adherents) “only insofar as it is a memorial which contains “in mysterio” the sacrifice of the Cross”, and thereby weakening “[…]the visibility of the sacrifice as taught by the Church” (thereby also perhaps incurring the condemnation of the Council of Trent on the point related to “Nuda commemoratio”— or, mere commemoration1).
- The Eucharist is no longer a visible sacrifice, but rather a mysterious symbol of Christ’s death and resurrection, which can give an impression of symbolism to the real presence in the Eucharist, resulting in a corruption of theology, thereby endangering the Faith.
The SSPX article argues that in the New Mass, “the sole refusal to profess Catholic dogmas quintessential to the Mass renders the new liturgy deficient.”
To illustrate this, it compares the situation to a ship’s captain who fails to give his crew proper nourishment, leading to weakness and harm. In the same way, the SSPX claims the New Mass is harmful because of what it lacks. As the article rightly states:
“[The New Mass] 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.”
In short, the SSPX argues that the Novus Ordo is called “evil” not because it openly teaches heresy, but because it withholds elements they believe are essential to the faith and spiritually necessary for souls, especially in light of the restrictions placed on the traditional Mass after 1969.
To summarize the two sections herein, (1) the Novus Ordo Mass is evil in it’s prohibitions and deficiency and (2) It’s validity can be permitted to be in doubt.
So what is Niles’ rant all about?
“It is ontologically impossible for the church as the indefectible bride of Christ to promulgate something that is at once valid and intrinsically evil”
However, this premise is based on her assumption that the Novus Ordo Mass (and therefore it’s Vatican II propagators & adherents) is the Church instituted by Christ. After all, how could the indefectible Church instituted by Christ, later through an ecumenical council, and through two canonized Popes create a Mass that is invalid or evil? And here is where Niles misses the point.
It doesn’t occur to Niles that the “indefectible bride of Christ – the One, True, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church” can exist parallelly to the mainstream Vatican II Church (with it’s New Mass) instituted in 1969; it’s existence perhaps God-willed, despite a rogue-revolutionary council, and an arguably apostate hierarchy (which, since the time of the ascent of Bergoglio, one would have to bury their head in the sand to not see).
Bp. Fulton Sheen spoke about “The Ape of God”, something he also referred to as an “Ape of the Church”, which he said was a counterfeit, deceptive imitation that mimics the Church’s structure and mission to lead souls astray, rather than destroying it directly. Is it therefore too far-fetched to ask if we are in this Ape of the Church? If we are, which of the institutions (between the Vatican II-Synodal Church & the SSPX) best resembles what Sheen describes as the counterfeit church?
Pope Benedict XVI confirmed in Summorum Pontificum that the Mass of all ages was never abrogated (paraphrased). Therefore, the adherents to the older form of the Mass & sound pre-conciliar Catholic doctrine, who in that sense have not bowed down to the golden idol of the new liturgy & ecclesiology, are perhaps the true Church or “the indefectible bride of Christ”.
Liturgical reforms, even papal or conciliar, must be judged by fidelity to apostolic Tradition; authority alone does not guarantee validity. Major liturgical alterations & innovations risk invalidity. This concern prompted the 1969 OI by twelve theologians critiquing the new Mass to Paul VI.
In summary, yes, it is ontologically impossible for the church as the indefectible bride of Christ to promulgate something that is invalid and intrinsically evil. And the question which needs to be asked is: Just how can we determine whether this ‘Church’ is represented by the post-Vatican II “Novus Ordo” structure, or by the smaller remnant that claims to preserve the Deposit of Faith as it existed before 1965? Perhaps a reading of Matthew 7:13-14 could give Catholics a clue. Look back since 1970 and introspect who has been on the narrow path, if not the SSPX. And conversely see how the SSPX have fared and grown over the years despite these challenges.
SSPX guilty of Blasphemy, says Christine.
“to claim the new mass is intrinsically evil is to say that Christ acting through his church promulgated something that is intrinsically evil in addition to being […]ontologically impossible. That’s blasphemy.
What exactly is blasphemy? As per Francis Suarez, blasphemy is “any word of malediction, reproach, or contumely pronounced against God”
Perhaps Niles reckons that labelling a good Mass as ‘evil’ is contumelious or insulting to God, and therefore blasphemous.
Firstly, A charge of blasphemy, especially by a Society within the Catholic Church, is a job for the Holy See to determine in accordance with Canon Law, and not the laity, no matter how competent. Their primary mission being Salus animarum suprema lex (the salvation of souls), the SSPX holds that the new Mass and it’s sacramental value to be in ecclesiological jeopardy. If the Church’s highest law is the salvation of souls, and if prayer shapes belief as articulated in the principle of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, failing to give God the worship due to Him, in the manner due to Him is what instead constitutes blasphemy.2
Secondly, in light of Dignitatis Humanae, one could argue that the SSPX bishops and priests have a right to follow their conscience in this matter, in order that souls “may come to God, the end and purpose of life”.3 If Vatican II documents are to be upheld, one cannot impede the SSPX in their religious liberty, even if it may be in opposition to the hierarchy that presided over the same council.
Thirdly, Note the instances where the word ‘blasphemy’ is used in Sacred Scripture. Both Matthew 26:65 & Acts 6:11 record the charge of blasphemy against Out Lord and St. Stephen, the first Christian martyr.
It may thus even be considered an honour by the SSPX to face public accusations of blasphemy, since their mission, according to their founder, has always been simply to remain truly Catholic.
Conclusion
In closing, my only request & advise to Niles is what Gamaliel gives the Sanhedrin in Acts 5:38 & 39
38 […] keep away from these men and let them alone, because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; 39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them – in that case you may even be found fighting against God!”
Pope St. Pius X bane of the modernists; St. Athanasius Contra Mundum & St. Nicholas of Myra vanquishers of the Arian heresy, pray for us & for the SSPX.
Ave Maria
References:
- Canon III (On the Sacrifice of the Mass): “If anyone says that the sacrifice of the Mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one… let him be anathema”. (Council of Trent, XXII Session)
- Summa Theologiae, Second Part of the Second Part, Q 13, Article 1 response: “Consequently whoever either denies anything befitting God, or affirms anything unbefitting Him, disparages the Divine goodness.”
- Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, On the Right of the Person and Communities to Social and Civil Freedom in Matters Religious, 1965, paragraph § 3.
