The “old” SSPX used to say that the new mass is evil and is a danger to the Faith.

By contrast, the New-SSPX promotes the idea that the problem is abuses at the new mass.

One example of this is the “new” SSPX’s recent article about Cardinal Sarah, a member of the so-called “conservative” wing of the conciliar revolution.¹ In this article, the N-SSPX uses Sarah to spread the new position into which it is transitioning, viz., that the problem is abuse at the new mass. This N-SSPX article promotes Sarah’s warning that the new mass is sometimes not said properly and there are sometimes abuses in the new mass.

The N-SSPX conveyed Sarah’s warning about the new mass that:

many [New] Masses become spectacles in which the priest no longer celebrates the love of Christ through His sacrifice but rather a meeting of friends, a convivial meal, a fraternal moment.

The truth is that all new masses are humanist meals even under the best conditions (regardless of the intent of the “priest” saying the new mass), because of the new mass’s essential elements and because the new mass is modeled after Protestant services, to please the Protestants.

The N-SSPX conveyed Sarah’s warning about the new mass that:

there is the risk of [the new mass] becoming merely a human game.

Risk?! In its essence, the new mass is always a humanist service or game.

The N-SSPX conveyed Sarah’s warning about the new mass that:

we run the risk of making our worship [viz., the new mass] too human.

After giving Sarah’s complaints about abuse at the new mass, the N-SSPX then identifies Sarah’s reason why the abuses occur in the new mass:

the main reason why contemporary liturgy [sic] is adrift is the priest’s position turned toward the people.

The “new” SSPX then tells the reader what Sarah proposes as a remedy for abuse at the new mass:

Celebrating [the new mass]—priests and lay faithful both—facing the same direction.

Without any comment, the N-SSPX sets forth Sarah’s “band aid” solution (that the defects in the new mass would be fixed if everyone faced the same direction).

The “new” SSPX is also silent about Sarah’s referring to “both” the priest and the people “celebrating” the mass. This is one of the countless errors of Vatican II which is espoused by even the “conservative” wing of the conciliar revolution. See, Lumen Gentium Annotated, by Quanta Cura Press, © 2013, p.78.

Regarding Vatican II as well, the “new” SSPX is transitioning into its new doctrinal position, viz., that the problems in the Church are that Vatican II is misinterpreted. The N-SSPX promotes Sarah’s assignment of the same root of the problem:

The Cardinal denounces wrong interpretations of Vatican Council II, which never asked priests to celebrate facing the people.

Lastly, the “new” SSPX conveys to the reader the hope which Cardinal Sarah shares for the (conciliar church’s) future, viz., that the young conciliar “priests” will make things better. Sarah assures us that many young [conciliar] priests … welcomed these recommendations [viz., about the priest saying the new mass facing the same direction as the people].

In conclusion: The N-SSPX is transitioning to acceptance of the new mass—which Modernist Rome will require from a future “recognized” SSPX. The N-SSPX’s reasoning is so weak and absurd that it should be enough to wake up the soundest sleeper. This is just one of the trial balloons the N-SSPX is using to determine how gullible its priests and laymen are and how fast the N-SSPX can implement its changes. It is embarrassing and really makes N-SSPX a laughing-stock among thinking traditional Catholics.