He's no dummy but only saints go to heaven not smart or dumb people lol.

That's been true, yes, from day one.
The FSSP is a "Trojan Horse" in the City of God, Holy Church.
The FSSP cannot preach on the burning heresies of our day, nor the questions of our day-- ie. all the points of doctrine, morals, and natural principles that Abp. Vigano preaches about-- or they will get ejected from any given diocese; for example: is Pope Francis pope given his manifest heresy? what is the teaching of the Church on homosexuality? on gender mutilation --ie. not new, Tertullian cut off his male part to supposedly "be conform to Scripture: "make yourselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven: read: spiritual eunuch, or "clerical promise/religious vows, or for all of us: "chaste" not a literal physical "eunuch"--? what is the teaching of the Church, negatively, regarding religious syncretism vs. positively, the One True Church "outside of which it is impossible to be saved"? what is the teaching of the Church on godless totalitarianism, WEF-style, or Communism, and their relationship to the coming of the Anti-Christ?
What does the Church teach regarding the conditions required for valid absolution including the firm purpose of amendment, and the resolution to avoid the occasions that lead to mortal sin, and including the requirement to firmly detest mortal sin (Act of Contrition: "I detest all my sins most sincerely..."), and, with the grace of God, to resolve to never sin again?
ASIDE: (Act of Contrition: "I firmly resolve by Thy holy grace never more to offend Thee, and to sin no more.") This last part of the Act of Contrition, must be ascertained as present in the firm disposition of the penitent by the priest sitting as judge in the tribunal of the confessional. The priest as judge must ascertain and confirm that the disposition of the penitent is "firm", "universal" ie. the detestation of all sins, especially mortal sins" and the penitent must be "resolved" to avoid the occasions that lead him to mortal sin'. Only then can the priest validly and licitly grant absolution to the penitent. The onus is on the penitent to demonstrate to the priest that he is "worthy" of absolution. If the penitent lies, or witholds his true intent from the priest, he is not absolved and a sacrilege is committed by the penitent, and by the priest if he neglected his duties and responsibilities to properly interrogate the penitent. The priest must accept what the penitent says at 'face value' as true unless the penitent contradicts himself with an evident lie. What Pope Francis teaches on this subject is total garbage. No priest can, before God, automatically absolve everyone. If not, the devil would be first in line to the confessional, and would be back in heaven...Pope Francis the matter of the Sacrament of Confession as instituted by Christ Himself. The sins of those whom you absolve are absolved; the sins of those whom you retain, or retained." "Whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven; whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven. In the Confessional, the priest stands in the Person of Christ and exercises His Self-Same Power, and Authority as Judge....There is no automatic "get out of jail card free" like in the game of Monopoly. For the priest to grant absolution, when it should, and must be refused, is, without question, a sacrilege. This is the constant, bimillenial teaching of the Church. To deviate from this traditional Catholic teaching is to be, at the very least, "suspect of heresy", if not "heretical." These last two pieces--1. to detest mortal sin meaning the intention to flee from the occasions which lead us to committing mortal sin ie. concubinage, partners in sin; 2. to firmly resolve not to sin again with help of the grace of God-- form a part of the "matter" of the Sacrament of Confession which must necessarily be present and sincere in the heart of the penitent for the sacrament to be validly administered. Even if the priest, having jurisdiction, says the correct formula of absolution: "Ego te absolvo ab omnibus peccatibus tuis...etc.", this latter being the "form" of the Sacrament of Confession, the Sacrament of Confession is invalidly conferred, and sacrilegiously attempted if the priest is derelict in his duties as judge in the tribunal of penitence. This is not high theology. This is our catechism...END OF ASIDE.
The FSSP is born out of Catholic liberalism: in private, we keep the Catholic Faith; in public, we cannot preach about certain points of doctrine, morals, nor about certain social principles, like the social kingship of Christ, or religious liberty. In private, we hold with the "Ottaviani Intervention" signed by Abp. Lefebvre on Sept. 25th, 1969: Ottaviani Intervention (1969) | Latin Mass Society; that "the New Mass represents a striking departure, both as a whole, and in its parts, from the doctrine of the Council of Trent;" in public, we "con-celebrate" the Novus Ordo once a year on Holy Thursday "in a show of unity with the local modernist bishop."
Heck, in Calgary, there is an FSSP/Novus Ordo parish, St. Anthony's Parish, with Mass times for both: the pastor, a conservative who offered the Indult Mass, and pines for the TLM, celebrates the Novus Ordo Masses, and the FSSP priest offer the TLMs.
End result: "religious relativism" among the parishioners who believe the the "New and Old Masses are of equal worth, and dignity, that they are equally good, and holy", when one, the "New Mass (oxymoron)," is a sacrilege (valid but illicit; not pleasing worship to God as "defective") and the other, the ONE and ONLY "Roman Rite from Time Immemorial"--there is not, and cannot be any another: de fide--, which can never be suppressed, replaced, or changed, is entirely pleasing worship, the true sacrifice to God, and is valid, and licit "usque in perpetua".

Well said!

@K R Ross a great summary ! I am in a FSSP (revitalized) Parish. Everything goes smoothly, until you dare ask "uncomfortable" questions; then you are quickly and ignored or 'shushed'. Never any talk about 'the current issues of the Church'. I compare it to the ( 3 monkeys actions) or the Mafia's "omertà" in old Sicily or New York. The TLM dress-code is no longer enforced, because people leaving the Novus Ordo, (a good number) "have to be made comfortable and we do not want to give the wrong message"....! It's understandable, they don't want to rock the boat, since the 'tyrant' in Santa Marta can wake up any morning on the wrong side of the bed, or have a talk with his 'rainbow pals' and decide to give the FSSP the guillotine ! But, Jesus did teach not to 'wobble': you either stand on one side, or the other. But you must choose. Obviously the FSSP is still deciding what is the most 'convenient' stand for them. For this reason, I'm very disappointed with their "ideology". At least with the SSPX, you basically know who they've been from the start!

In my opinion, there can be no compromises when it comes to being a Catholic bishop or priest today. Remember the "iota unum" of St. Athanasius: "homoousios or homoousion in Greek: one letter of the alphabet only was the difference between Arianism and Catholicism; thousands upon thousands lost their lives over "ONE LETTER"; homoousios: the Arian heresy: "of a similar, but not identical, essence (or substance) with God the Father"; the Latin translation of homoousion --the Catholic dogma in our Nicene Creed-- is coessentialis or consubstantialis, which led to the English terms "coessential" and "consubstantial" or the orthodox Catholic expression: "of identical substance with the Father."
This is where we draw the line: not "one iota" more or less; that is to say, not "one jot or tittle" more or less": this is Catholic orthodoxy, full-stop. We die rather than change.
Yet the Arians had the churches, and the Catholics had the hedgerows, and the Catholic Faith, full-stop. That's all that mattered. Divine Providence worked things out: when all appeared lost for Catholics, and completely hopeless to all, the last Catholic princess in the Western Church, Ste. Clothilde was sent by Pope Hormisdas on a "secret mission" to save the Church--as a kind of spiritual "Hail Mary" pass to win the game from behind--to influence, marry and convert St. Clovis, the pagan, and the Arian sympathizer, to Catholicism. Arians: 95%/Catholics: 5%. Afterward, Catholics: 100%/Arians: 0%. "The stone that the builders rejected has become the corner stone." The rest is history. The Arians no longer exist. Catholics do.
Nicene Catholic bishops and priests were martyred in the thousands over a long period of Arian domination over the Catholic Church. There was no compromise...The Arians said: "Catholic?; you die."
You are either a Chinese Patriotic priest, or a Catholic priest.
You are either a French Revolutionary "oath breaking priest" ("prêtre jureur" definition: "Prêtre jureur", s'est dit en France des prêtres qui avaient consenti à prêter le serment à la Constitution civile du clergé (on dit aussi Prêtre assermenté), or a Catholic priest martyred in the prison ships sunk off Rochefort: the Rochefort group of martyr priests: Rochefort martyrs - Wikipedia
You are either a foresworn, Elizabethan, turncoat Anglican priest, formerly a Catholic priest, who, in order to retain his parish and benefices, usurped by the Anglican sect from the Catholic Church, swore the "Oath of Supremacy" to the Sovereign, now Anglican "pope", against the Bull of Excommunication of Henry VIII by Pope Paul III, or you are one of Queen Mary's faithful Catholic priests hiding in a priest hole. If caught you are martyred at Tyburn...hung, drawn, and quartered for treason against the English State.
You are either an FSSP priest obedient to Modernist Rome and the local modernist diocesan bishops without authentic traditional Catholic bishops, vowed to dissolution, or you are an FSSPX priest in fidelity to Abp. Lefebvre's "Operation Survival", to his fight against modernism, against compromise regarding the New Mass, and the doctrinal errors of Vatican II, and to "the Rome of Always." All the Arbishop asked for from Rome was: "Allow us to continue the 'experiment of the authentic tradition.' We will come back and compare notes and statistics to see which path bears "evangelical fruit."

That was more true many years ago. Today, there are many FSSP and ICKSP apostolates that are nowhere near SSPX apostolates. Where I live, there are at least 5 Ecclesia Dei parishes that are closer than the nearest SSPX daily Mass location.

Rough eatimate how close are the Ecclesia Dei parishes to the nearest SSPX in your area...?

@Seabass There is one SSPX mission (Mass on Sunday only, in a former Protestant church) in Massachusetts, near Boston. They have one Mass per week. The FSSP is in Providence and Nashua. The ICKSP is in Warren Mass and Waterbury Connecticut (that probably was set up to take from the SSPX, as it has been around a long time). There is another SSPX mission (weekly Mass, in a former Protestant church)in eastern Connecticut. The nearest full service SSPX church is a good two and a half hours away, almost to New York City. The Providence FSSP parish was established in 2018, in one of the largest and most beautiful churches in Providence. The Nashua parish was established a bit before that, in a beautiful old Polish church in Nashua. The ICKSP in Massachusetts was established a year ago, in a small but beautiful old parish church that would likely have needed to close otherwise. New Hampshire also has a recently established IBP apostolate, which is the first in North America, I believe. The SSPX barely has any presence in New England, and likely wouldn’t have any at all were it not for the fact that New York City is nearby, and that their US seminary was originally in Connecticut.

Well, drive two or three hours to Mass at a shabby, overcrowded FSSPX Mass Centre in a former Protestant church, or 30 minutes to a resplendent lovely FSSP parish with seating for hundreds in the heart of the city? That's the dilemna. The "slippery downhill slope" lined with amusements, entertainment, technicolor distractions along with a free toboggan with room for you and all of your friends to speed your journey downwards vs. the rarely taken, difficult, boring, narrow, winding, uphill path lined with thorns...so painful...in only "black and white" too...
Remember St. Athanasius: "The Arians have the churches. The Catholics have the hedgerows and the Catholic Faith." Yes... most importantly...the FSSPX, as guardian of Tradition, has the integral Catholic Faith, whole and entire, without addition, subtraction, or omission.
For me, the decision is quickly made...

The FSSPX is prudent following the safest path as did Abp Lefebvre.
First Analogy: Abp Lefebvre used this one to describe how Holy Church and Modernist Rome can co-exist together in the same institution: “tares and wheat together until Judgement Day: a mystery.” How?
Here is a second analogy that the saintly archbishop used to explain the mystery of the modernist crisis up to the highest level of the Church:
Our Lord Jesus Christ was fully Divine and fully Human during His Scourging and Way of the Cross. His Divinity was obscured but present. So it is with the Church, and with the papacy of Pope Francis….obscured but present. How? A mystery

Ari B - it is not true that most SSPX parishioners are sedes. Most are conscientiously trying to gain heaven and the priests, while also explaining the Crisis, in no way promote sedevacantism.

No one can say with "absolute certainty" that Francis is not pope as only the pope has the authority to make such a decision, for example, in declaring himself a heretic and resigning.
Yes, only the pope can make such a "definitive, binding judgement with regards to himself," and not the FSSPX. Only the pope himself, or Divine Intervention by God, can legally judge his own papacy; no one else. Everyone else simply has a "theological opinion that is considered more, or less certain." Approved canonical theologians, appointed by the Church, like Suarez and Bellarmine, were and are allowed by the Church to hold these diverse opinions and to prove, or disprove them in times of controversy. Lay people are not allowed to formulate diverse theological opinions in these regards. Common sense: they don't know enough, even if it is "their considered opinion...lol" that they think that they do.
Sedevacantist priests have been kicked out of the FSSPX since Sanborn and Oyster Bay, NY. They continue to be kicked out. I have know many personally...
I do not agree with your statement about "most of the faithful being sedevacantist" either. All of the FSSPX faithful that I know are not sedevacantists. They may have tendencies in that direction in the form of doubts about Francis' papacy. Heck, I have doubts too...
If not, the lay people who attend FSSPX mass centers would not be there.
Why? The photo of the pope is clearly on display in every FSSPX chapel, and the formula "una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro Francisce" must be said by all FSSPX priests at the beginning of the "Te Igitur" of the Roman Canon of the Mass. There is no "opt out" option available...except "the door."
No sedevacantist lay person would tolerate the above two things at their church or during their Masses...
He/she would leave the FSSPX chapel rather than compromise. Sedevacantists are not known for compromise but for "black and white." The FSSPX says the reality surrounding the papacy is more complex requiring discernment and prudence, or "shades of gray." Also, the reality of the papacy requires St. Thomas Aquinas' syllogistic principle: "distinguo ad majorem." He who does not distinguish confounds." Things are not always black and white..."
Ex. in a certain sense, it would appear that the pope is the pope as he is accepted as such by Catholics universally; in another sense, it would appear that the pope is a heretic, either material, or formal; yet the pope has no judge on earth but only Christ in Heaven whose Vicar on earth, he is. Common sense dictates that we wait it out until things are clarified by Divine Providence.
Kind of like the shoot-out at OK Corral. Who will win? Not sure. St. Alphonus de Liguori: when we are not morally sure, we cannot act morally. We must wait until we have moral certainty. So let's watch the shoot-out between the factions: "He definitely is pope" vs. "He definitely is not pope" while holding the position that is most morally sure: "we assume that Francis is pope until proven otherwise." This is prudence. This is a perfectly Catholic position to take under the circumstances. Remember: "Doubts do not resolutions nor certainty make." My position is a prudential one: "He is probably pope" unless we have moral certitude to the contrary.
Even Popes Liberius and Formosa were true popes despite their heresies. Pope Alexander VI was true pope despite his many scandals and immoralities...
The theologians who sided with the various anti-popes during the Great Schism, for the most part, were extreme in the positions, and, therefore, they held extreme positions, or were influenced by national bias which clouded their judgement. Some just made a mistake and were reconciled afterward: St. Vincent Ferrer was backing his rival who had rejected the true pope in Rome. The saint was just a little too confident in his own views...We should distrust our own judgement more...hence, the prudential, morally uncertain position (...so one cannot act morally until the doubt is resolved by Divine Providence; one must. therefore, withhold judgement until definitive, externally, and abstain from moral action, and moral decision making regarding the legitimacy of Francis' papacy) of "he's probably pope, let's assume he's pope, as the consequences of having "sedes vacans since the end of the reign of Pius XII" don't bode well for the indefectability of the Church...until definitively proven otherwise."
We wait for Divine Providence to make everything clear to us in God's time.

Yeah I respectfully disagree with the rest of you. He’s a heretic and not the pope.

I don’t know what planet some of you are on, but on my planet, putting a pagan goddess up for veneration is heresy. So is worship of other gods in the “Mayan rite”

Exactly!

Extremely poor translation…

At issue, does the FSSPX consecrate bishops now or wait? Divine Providence will decide.

Agreed - from where did the idea arise the preaching was a Protectant invention? The SSPX is a the most balanced traditional parish I have ever frequented.

I agree that their preaching is fantastic. Head and shoulders above the sermons of the majority of even traditional priests.
For the source of the confusion:
See above in en news body of article: quote:
"[In reality, many sermons are more of a penitential exercise for the faithful; in any case, sermons are a Protestant development as the pulpit increasingly replaces the altar and even interrupts Holy Mass.]"
I think that this, at the most, calumny, or at the least, false accusation is based on either misinformation, or on ignorance, or is based on an anti-FSSPX bias coming from the editors of "en news" themselves, or from "Gloria.tv"...or from both.
I could be wrong in my assessment as I do not know what the above editor's position is regarding the FSSPX. Also, the translation above was horrendous, and that could be part of the problem.

I think why many traditional Catholics believe preaching is a Protestant invention is twofold: 1) historically Protestants overemphasized preaching of the Word of God [Bible] because they denied sacramental theology, and 2) attendance at Low Mass led many to experience Eucharist without a sermon. A strong third option is the horrible state of homilies EVEN AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS in the modern Catholic Church has resulted in an avoidance of preaching altogether. I know it's really a cross for the faithful to hear the banalities & inanities that come out of the mouths of many priests today!

Good points, Dogmatix...oops, I mean OrthoCat lol.
I would add two points:
1. The modernists first removed the tabernacle from the altar and put the tabernacle in a corner to de-emphasize the Blessed Sacrament being the centre and visual focus of attention in Catholic churches. They put the priest's chair where the altar and the tabernacle were--where God was.
Then they separated the Word of God from the Altar of Sacrifice as the readings were done from the altar not from the 'ambo'. Once the Word of God was separated from the altar, they turned the altar of sacrifice into a memorial table of thanksgiving. Then they gave equal status to the Word of God ambo as to the memorial table to the extent of putting two candles permanently beside the ambo. And voila...the modernist liturgical revolution is a fait accompli. Protestant Reformation bis.
2. The modernists want us to feel guilty if Mass is offered without a "homily" or without a "congregation in attendance." This leads us to the question: What is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass fundamentally as a whole, and in its separate parts?
In Catholic theology, propitiation refers to the doctrine that original sin, and mortal sin are infinite offences against the Infinite Majesty of God. Our Lord Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the Cross was required by God to satisfy His Infinite Justice once infinitely offended by mankind's sins, and required by God to reconcile humanity to God. Our Blessed Lord, God Incarnate, is both True God and True Man.
Only Our Divine Savior could Infinitely merit Infinite Atonement for our sins by His Death on the Cross as only He is a God-Man. Also, by not sparing His Only Begotten Son, while sparing Abraham's son, Isaac, God wanted to teach us to have horror for sin, and that each mortal sin is an infinite offence against the Divine Majesty of God that no human person could possibly atone as it required an equal and opposite infinite act of atonement that only a Divine Person, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, God Incarnate, could perform. Propitiation is a theological term used to describe the atoning sacrifice of Christ, which appeased God's wrath and restored humanity to a state of grace, impossible without the Redemption.
This doctrine is rooted in Sacred Scripture in the Old and New Testaments and has organically developed in precision and in depth over the centuries influenced by the theological insights of Doctors of the Church, and holy theologians throughout Church history, including St. Thomas Aquinas.
Propitiation is a central tenet of Catholic faith and practice.
Just Christ is One Divine Person, the Church teaches that you cannot separate the tabernacle with the Reserved Sacrament from the Altar of Sacrifice, nor can you separate the Word of God from the Altar over to a separate and equal 'Ambo' from that same Altar as if the Eucharistic Sacrifice and a sermon were equal. The united "Altar of sacrifice-Tabernacle of Repose- and the Word of God proclaimed from the Altar" symbolize one reality only, one thing only: Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, Our Redeemer, Whole, Entire, Undivided, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Who but the devil would dare separate that ONE REALITY into disparate, jarring parts?
The Doctrine of Propitiation in Catholic Theology and in the Mass
It is important to note that the Catholic doctrine of propitiation does not imply that God is angry with humanity in a personal sense. God's wrath against evil however is real ie. Noah's Arch and the Great Flood, Sodom and Gemorrah, etc. God cannot be Infinitely Good, nor Infinite Love. If God did not hate evil. Anger in God is not passion as with men. Anger in God is action against evil through miracles and judgement. God would contradict His Own Essence and Being in that case, and would cease to exist due to the principle of identity, and of non-contradiction. We should not anthropomorphize God's anger and equate it to human anger. Hence, we can say that God's wrath against the sin and iniquity of mankind, in a general sense, is real, and is appeased once and for all by Christ's sacrifice on the cross, and is continues to be appeased each time the Redemption is applied to us again here in time by the continual offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass all over the world.
This Catholic doctrine of the Holy Mass being a propitiatory sacrifice with salutary effect was rejected by the Protestants as for Luther all human works are sinful and bad, as man's human nature is corrupt, and, as a result, all of man's actions are worthless, without effect, and are sinful and bad including the Sacrifice of the Mass. The doctrine of propitiation demonstrates the seriousness of sin and the necessity of divine intervention to restore the broken relationship between God and humanity. The Mass is first and foremost a re-enactment of the self-same Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, re-presented in time, by the priest who stands "in the person of Christ"--alter Christus--. The Sacrifice of the Mass applies, in time, the actual merits of the Redemption, won by Our Lord on the Cross, to our souls today. Therefore, the Mass is not a pedagogical tool. The Mass is the Sacrifice of the Altar. We do not say: "Preaching is the Mass". To separate the Word of God and the Altar is blasphemy and sacrilege. This is what the Protestants did when they rejected that on an altar a true propitiatory sacrifice is offered. That's why they dismantled and separated everything. Preaching at Mass to the people if they are present is a pastoral opportunity that can edify, educate and inspire them...but it is not NECESSARY per se. A sermon at Mass is opportune or not depending on the circumstances. The redemptive value of one Mass, in and of itself, is infinite and suffices unto itself. Therefore, the more Holy Masses offered by priests the better as more graces will rain down on the Church, and the Souls in Purgatory, for example. The New Mass has killed devotion and obligation to succour the Holy Souls in Purgatory. Each and every Mass offered is of inestimable value to God, to the Church, and to us; hence, our Mass intentions, for example.
St. Peter's Basilica used to have separate Low Masses offered at the many side altars every day. 'I Con-celebration' killed that off after the Council. Pope Francis killed off con-celebrations after that. St. Peter's has become Haga Sophia bis...a museum. Monasteries had multiple side altars as well so that each monk priest could offer the Holy Sacrifice at the same time as 'con-celebration' is not the standard in the Western Church except at priestly ordinations. In the Eastern Church, concelebration is the standard.
Mass Chantries in England at the time of Henry VIII offered Requiem Masses, like multiple Gregorians over many decades, supported by wealthy benefactors. These priests were 'mass priests'. They were ordained to carry out the key function of the sacrificial priesthood, to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass...alone. The Mass is itself literally a sacrifice, therefore propitiatory; but it's not literally the same the self-same event in time as the Sacrifice of the Cross, since our Lord does not die again at Mass, but it has the self-same effect of the Sacrifice of the Cross...every Mass. The Mass offers propitiation to God, or the infinite atonement of the Satisfaction of Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross which "makes whole", offers infinite reparation for the infinite offense of sin to God. The Mass is an act of infinite propitiation to God for the sins of all of mankind from the first sin of disobedience to the end of the world. So the Mass is a literal visible sacrifice, which represents and 'applies the merits' of the literal, once-for-all sacrifice of the Cross.They did not preach. They did not have congregrations. Why? Propitiatory sacrifice was offered by Abraham of his son Isaac in the Old Testament. The patriarch's sacrifice had value only in so far as they prem-figured and symbolized Christ's future sacrifice on Calvary. Circumcision was a pre-application of the future merits of the sacrifice of Christ in the Old Testament. This pre-application was salutary for the Jews. In Catholic doctrine, propitiation is defined the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross redeemed mankind 'in potency', and the Sacrifice of the Mass applies 'in actu' the salutary effects of the Redemption to mankind, the propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass also calms God's wrath, which satisfied God's justice and resulted in God being favorably disposed towards people.Catholics believe, unlike Protestants and modernists, that the Holy Mass is a 'propitiatory sacrifice' which means a good spiritual action, or work, which has a real, salutary effect of atonement.
Bugnini and his Protestant Liturgical 'periti' Visigoths pulled 'concelebration' from here, and the Canon of Hippolytus from there, and again Communion in the hand from some other time, somewhere else. All were discarded by the Church.
Conclusion:
It is not essential to the holy rites that there is be a sermon at every Mass. The Mass is first and foremost true pleasing worship offered to God. It is not first and foremost a pedagogical tool for education, only indirectly. Christ did not come just to preach, although preach He did. Our Divine Saviour came to redeem the world, and to apply the potential Redemption of the Cross through the Seven Sacraments, especially through the Mass, the Sacrament of His Body and Blood, the potential Redemption made actual in our lives when we accept the graces that flow w through the Holy Sacrifice. The Mass is 'deocentric' not 'anthrocentric.' First and foremost, we participate fully in the priest's offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by uniting ourselves spiritually and invisibly along with the whole Church to what is occurring: the re-presentation and re-application in time of Christ's great and Infinite Redemptive Act of Divine Love to atone for mankind's sins which represent an infinite offence against the Divine Majesty. In fact, a sermon might even be inappropriate at some Low Masses especially given the cases I have outlined above.

Good write up. The Mass is not self-explanatory. It is a mystery that in itself both reveals and hides. In the Western Church, due to its focus on the Greek and Roman schools of metaphysics, including Plato and Aristotle…corrected of their pagan errors, all neatly packaged as scholasticism, Christian Aristotelian Thomistic philosophy, the philosophy of the Church, the emphasis is on our ability to know objective truth, hence, the Western Church’s emphasis on the power of human reason, and on the philosophical system of mediate realism as the necessary formative gateway and training that provides the correct tools to studying, and understanding all of theology, the canonized and approved foundation and pillar of orthodox Catholic theology, with its emphasis on clarity of thought, precise defined traditional terms, logic, the syllogism, to arrive at theology’s traditional meaning. Thomistic Education therefore is not important, it is essential in first philosophical and then secondly theological training. Modernism will not disappear until the Church returns to ‘true Catholic education’.
The weakness of this approach is its tendency to overemphasize education for education’s sake separated from the goal of this education once acquired, holiness. Without holiness, the best sermon is a “banging drum, a clashing cymbal:” human air raising human dust without being animated, or vivified by sanctifying grace, HOLINESS. Placing the sermon at beginning of liturgical rites is a regional prudential pastoral decision. Neither true nor false, good or bad, but indifferent morally until circumstances require a change in pastoral practice to suit the needs of the age, and impose a morality.
In the Eastern Church, there is an emphasis on the inscrutable mysterious nature of the Divine Mysteries of the Holy Liturgy. There is nothing to define or understand or even to explain. The Liturgy is visual, auditory, sensory, and has its own pedagogy. Pray and listen and look and you will learn more about the mysteries of God.No one can help you or explain; the Liturgy explains what it wants to reveal itself. Hence, in Russia, there is no effort to distribute vernacular printed translations of the Holy Liturgy or to molly-coddle converts to Orthodoxy. They are on their own as all believers were and are in this regard.\