Since the purpose of this website is the preserving of tradition, such as the
Douay-Rheims and Latin Vulgate Bibles, it seems appropriate to provide a list of
traditional Latin Masses offered by the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) and others.
TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS LOCATIONS:
SSPX Masses, USA
SSPX Masses, Canada
SSPX Masses, England (Great Britain), Scotland and Wales
SSPX Masses, Australia
SSPX Masses, Asia, Hong Kong, Philippines
Other Latin Masses
IN DEFENSE OF SSPX:
Contrary to rumors and lies, the Tridentine Latin Mass was never abrogated (done away with) and the SSPX Latin Masses were
never illicit. Look up the situation in Hawaii in which Rome told the faithful that they could fulfill their Sunday obligation
by attending the SSPX Latin Masses. Finally, Pope Benedict XVI has published the motu proprio "freeing" the Latin Mass, which
is dishonest. He should have said the Latin Mass was never abrogated.
The biggest lie is Pope John Paul II's apostolic letter,
"Ecclesia Dei", which states that Archbishop Lefebvre had "incurred the grave penalty of excommunication", for
consecrating four bishops without permission from the Pope.
On the surface, it looks bad for Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers, however, a little research uncovers
a different perspective and leads a thinking person to a different conclusion. To put it briefly, Canon Law says
it is perfectly valid for an archbishop to consecrate bishops, WITHOUT the permission of the Pope, if the archbishop
thinks it is necessary to preserve the Faith.
Archbishop Lefebvre seriously thought it was a necessity because he had already expressed the concern that Rome
was losing the Faith. Therefore, the excommunication warned of on June 17 1988, for abuse of episcopal powers (canon 1382),
was not incurred because a person who violates a law out of necessity is not subject to a penalty (1983 Code of Canon
Law, canon 1323, §4), even if there is no state of necessity. If one inculpably thought there was a necessity, he would
not incur the penalty (canon 1323, 70), nor would he incur any automatic penalties (canon 1324, §3; §1, 80).
So, Pope John Paul II's statement is incorrect. Not every statement a pope makes is an infallible statement. In
this case the Pope does not know his own Canon Law.
On this issue, some modernists claim that the Canon Law says the pope is the "sumpreme legislator" and can say
whatever he wants and we have to believe it. However, he cannot arbitrarily make statements that go against
the traditions of the Church. Pope Urban III said, "When the pope goes against the traditions of the Church,
he does not have to be believed."
The archbishop was not breaking from Rome, because he and his society officially accepts the Roman Pontiff as the Vicar of Christ
on earth. The archbishop was not breaking from anything, rather he was preserving the Faith, while Rome (Vatican II) was trying
to change the Faith.
St. Paul had this to say about breaking away from tradition (as Vatican II has done):
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you,
let him be anathema." [Galatians 1:8]
On the issue of SCHISM, Cardinal Castrillon has said that SSPX is not in schism. Look it up.
Currently, in 2018, the SSPX superior general, Bishop Fellay, wants to make a canonical agreement with Rome,
without making a doctrinal agreement, and have the SSPX come under the authority of Rome. Archbishop Lefebvre would
never have done that, because he said, "Rome has lost the Faith". In fact, the reason for the creation of the
SSPX was Rome's loss of the Faith. It seems that Bishop Fellay has forgotten why the SSPX was created.
In fact, Bishop Fellay has expelled many priests and one bishop for speaking out against making an agreement with Rome
(source). It makes one wonder, what is Bishop
Fellay's real motive? Destruction of the SSPX?