Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Matthew on April 19, 2019, 09:15:27 AM
-
We are to avoid the Novus Ordo Mass specifically, and stay aloof from the Conciliar Church, due to the danger of Modernist contagion and risk to our Catholic Faith.
However, that does not extend to refusing to speak to individual Catholics, excommunicating all Novus Ordo attendees as "non-Catholic", or rejecting all organizations whose employees attend the Novus Ordo.
How do I say it nicely? There are plenty of things that Trads can't or won't do. So God bless those "novus order" Catholics and organizations!
There are many GOOD, PRAISEWORTHY apostolates which Trads are unable/unwilling to do. I'm tempted to throw in a bunch of digs against Trads here. Ok, I'll be brief: they can be very discouraged, having a siege mentality, apocalyptic, negative, as well as apathetic/lazy and lacking ambition. I've been a Trad all my life, so I know Trads all too well, so I am well qualified to criticize them.
Sure, there are some organizations or businesses which are intimately tied up with the new Conciliar Religion. Modern Catholic book publishers, for example. 1. We have several Trad Catholic book publishers, so why not favor them? and 2. books are something that can be tainted by the new religion.
But Trads should NOT dismiss countless good apostolates which have no Trad equivalent, and/or which aren't completely nullified by contact with the Novus Ordo.
Don't pretend such organizations don't exist. There are plenty!
Pro-life movement, news and Catholic action organizations like LifeSiteNews
Church supply companies like Leaflet Missal and Autom -- they have modern crap for sale, but also many completely traditional products.
All the many individual companies who make cassocks, surplices, and religious goods to sell in catalogs like Autom and Leaflet Missal.
Organizations pushing important apparitions like Fatima
Organizations like Abby Johnson's which focus on finding alternate employment for Abortion industry workers (I bet no Trads are working on this one!)
Specific apostolates like orphanages, charities, helping the poor, soup kitchens, shelters, helping women in crisis pregnancies, helping women who regret abortions, "Project Rachael" -- the list is very long.
There aren't enough go-getter Trads WILLING and ABLE to create their own large apostolates to do these things. How can we write off as "novus ordo" these good apostolates, organizations, and businesses when we Trads have nothing to replace them with -- and they are doing good work which NEEDS to be done.
Long story short, there are Catholics in the Novus Ordo. Sure, many of them are defective materially in their knowledge, and maybe they even have bad habits thanks to their priests. But they have the Faith. They are there to serve God and do His will. They only *tolerate* the crap. This group of good-willed Catholics is the group from which Catholics discover Tradition and become Traditional Catholics. People enter Tradition on a regular basis!
-
I should add --
Businesses like Autom and Leaflet Missal *better* be OK with the Conciliar Church, because otherwise how would they stay in business? They better sell white albs for vesting altar girls and rainbow sashes for Californian priests, because they're going to sell a lot more of them than Traditional cassocks and surplices. I've said dozens of times that Trads aren't a large enough group to provide anybody a living. No one manages to make a living catering to Trads exclusively, unless they are a priest.
Trads are too small of a group, and frankly they don't have much money to spend on anything. I wish this wasn't the case!
So any business that believes so strongly in the Trad cause that they only want to cater to Trads, had better be a side business run from someone's home! Because $300 a month selling Trad wares isn't enough income to support a single person, much less a large family.
No one is more qualified than me to say this. I was intimately involved with TAN Books for a long time, plus I have worked with many Trads over the years in various businesses and endeavors, plus many of my own! I know what I'm talking about.
TAN Books and Publishers came close in their heyday, but today they have less than 10 employees. And of course they aren't a strictly Trad business anymore, ever since they were bought out by St. Benedict Press in 2009.
-
We are to avoid the Novus Ordo Mass specifically, and stay aloof from the Conciliar Church, due to the danger of Modernist contagion and risk to our Catholic Faith.
However, that does not extend to refusing to speak to individual Catholics, excommunicating all Novus Ordo attendees as "non-Catholic", or rejecting all organizations whose employees attend the Novus Ordo.
How do I say it nicely? There are plenty of things that Trads can't or won't do. So God bless those "novus order" Catholics and organizations!
There are many GOOD, PRAISEWORTHY apostolates which Trads are unable/unwilling to do. I'm tempted to throw in a bunch of digs against Trads here. Ok, I'll be brief: they can be very discouraged, having a siege mentality, apocalyptic, negative, as well as apathetic/lazy and lacking ambition. I've been a Trad all my life, so I know Trads all too well, so I am well qualified to criticize them.
Sure, there are some organizations or businesses which are intimately tied up with the new Conciliar Religion. Modern Catholic book publishers, for example. 1. We have several Trad Catholic book publishers, so why not favor them? and 2. books are something that can be tainted by the new religion.
But Trads should NOT dismiss countless good apostolates which have no Trad equivalent, and/or which aren't completely nullified by contact with the Novus Ordo.
Don't pretend such organizations don't exist. There are plenty!
Pro-life movement, news and Catholic action organizations like LifeSiteNews
Church supply companies like Leaflet Missal and Autom -- they have modern crap for sale, but also many completely traditional products.
All the many individual companies who make cassocks, surplices, and religious goods to sell in catalogs like Autom and Leaflet Missal.
Organizations pushing important apparitions like Fatima
Organizations like Abby Johnson's which focus on finding alternate employment for Abortion industry workers (I bet no Trads are working on this one!)
Specific apostolates like orphanages, charities, helping the poor, soup kitchens, shelters, helping women in crisis pregnancies, helping women who regret abortions, "Project Rachael" -- the list is very long.
There aren't enough go-getter Trads WILLING and ABLE to create their own large apostolates to do these things. How can we write off as "novus ordo" these good apostolates, organizations, and businesses when we Trads have nothing to replace them with -- and they are doing good work which NEEDS to be done.
Long story short, there are Catholics in the Novus Ordo. Sure, many of them are defective materially in their knowledge, and maybe they even have bad habits thanks to their priests. But they have the Faith. They are there to serve God and do His will. They only *tolerate* the crap. This group of good-willed Catholics is the group from which Catholics discover Tradition and become Traditional Catholics. People enter Tradition on a regular basis!
It’s funny you should say this. I was wondering the other day if I should be donating to FOCUS. It is the Fellowship of Catholic University Students. They are the ones who got me back in to the Faith after going to Protestant services after my conversion from the Hare Krishnas. I’ve been thinking lately, that it might be wrong to give them money because it is a Novus Ordo apostolate. But I’ve come up with both reasons to donate to them and to not.
Also, as far as Trad apostolates go, check out my friend Kevin’s apostolate. It’s called Souls of the Christian Apostolate. He can be found on YouTube and a google search will bring up his website. He attends FSSP, but he is an intelligent and holy young man, working for students in Denver.
-
Yes, and also there is the "Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation", they are primarily FSSP parishioners, and collaborate with the Novus Ordo, but they also able to reach the people within the Novus ordo and introduce them to Tradition. They even got an open invitation to teach at all the seminaries in Uganda. For those Africans, this will be the first exposure to certain aspects of the Traditional Catholic faith.
Another example is the TFP, despite all their problems, they are the only ones I see who are constantly protesting and petitioning all types of blasphemies that most of us would never know is going on had they not bring it to our attention.
Everyone who found his or her way out of the Novus Ordo to Tradition had to start somewhere.
-
He attends FSSP, but he is an intelligent and holy young man, working for students in Denver.
Well, let's pray that he receives the grace of conversion before death.
I'M KIDDING! :)
It's a good example of what I mean though.
I personally consider the FSSP to be overall a very compromised group. But the individuals in the group are obviously Catholic! They are very conservative Catholics, certainly in possession of the Catholic Faith.
About the FSSP:
Traditional Catholics, from the very beginning, have held 3 essential principles:
1. Leave the Conciliar Church and Novus Ordo behind completely, regardless of having a Trad option lined up for Mass. Stay home on Sunday if no Tridentine Mass available.
2. Seek out SURE sacraments in "lifeboats": valid priests to offer both the Tridentine Mass and traditional Sacraments, and support them wherever they are, even at independently set up "Traditional chapels" which Rome considers "illicit" or "un-canonical". Treat them for all practical purposes like one's local parish.
3. Believe "I don't need permission from the Pope, or Modernist Rome, to stay Catholic". That is, believe in supplied jurisdiction for Mass and ALL sacraments, and have NO scruples about attaching oneself to, and fully supporting, such Trad chapels and building them up.
Those elements are common to 100% of Traditional Catholics. Anyone who scruples about going to Confession to a Trad priest because he doesn't have official jurisdiction or faculties from the local Bishop, for example, is not a Trad. He might be conservative, but if he doesn't understand that Catholics have a right to keep their Faith, and a need for the Sacraments, they have a lot to learn and therefore are not yet "Traditional Catholic".
Enter the FSSP:
Since part of their essence is "approval/permission from Rome" they are technically not Trad, since such approval was not part of the Trad package from the beginning. But more importantly, it actually contradicts principle #3, above. From the beginning of the movement in the 1970's, getting permission from Rome was certainly NOT one of the elements of the Traditional movement. So the FSSP is a new kind of conservative Catholic at best ("Indult Catholic"? "Latin Mass Catholic"?).
While Sedevacantists ALSO added another element to the Traditional manifesto, "4. The putative pope is not pope at all.", this is different in two main ways:
1. A good number of Trads believed this from the beginning. It was there, just not universal. So they are a specific sub-type of Trad, rather than SOMETHING OTHER THAN Trad.
2. Their additional belief doesn't contradict Trad principles 1-3.
-
I personally consider the FSSP to be overall a very compromised group. But the individuals in the group are obviously Catholic! They are very conservative Catholics, certainly in possession of the Catholic Faith.
The FSSP accepts V2 and the new mass, as an organizational philosophy. The # of priests who preach against V2 and the new mass are few. Those who do so consistently are non-existent. Consequently, we must say that, in general, the FSSP does not form catholic laity or priests who have the full, 100% Traditional Faith since they accept V2's errors and the new mass' anti-Trent theology.
.
Every single catholic who lived since 1517 has been infected with Protestantism to some degree. And we've all been infected with Modernism, consumerism and socialism as well in our personal lives. But we recognize these failings because we are Traditional Catholics who have been taught 100% orthodoxy, so we are able to recognize that which is unorthodox. The FSSP's philosophy is to accept V2 and the new mass, therefore they are blind (to some degree) in recognizing unorthodox ideals, though they may stick with the Traditional liturgy. I cannot say that FSSP catholics "possess the Faith" in the same way that true Trads do. If we were allowed to say the FSSP possesses the Faith, in general, then we have no reason to criticize +Fellay's new-sspx, which aspires to be just what the FSSP is - a compromise of Christ (Eternal Truth) with V2 ("truth" for the modern man). Those few indulters who know their Faith, know it due to some other influence or self-study.
.
I hope and pray that all Indult catholics save their souls but they still need to convert before this happens.
-
I hope and pray that all Indult catholics save their souls but they still need to convert before this happens.
Are you serious? You would stop and scruple about giving an FSSP man a Catholic burial if he failed to "convert" before death?
There is only one Faith that saves souls into Heaven, the Catholic Faith.
If you believe all the truths the Catholic Church teaches because God has revealed them, and die in the state of grace, you will save your soul. I believe such Catholics are found in every Trad group, and even in the Conciliar Church.
But that doesn't mean we should all treat the Conciliar Church as low risk. There might only be 2% (or less!) of the population that still has the Faith -- the rest pick and choose what
THEY FEEL is right, mostly based on their own convenience and what the World believes. Once you start picking and choosing, you're a heretic and you don't have the Faith, period.
Material heretics could still have the Faith. Remember that.
And to a lesser degree, the Indult groups are dangerous, but less so than the Novus Ordo. All should be left behind to increase one's chances -- but there is nothing fundamental that happens when a Catholic "moves upward" into a better lifeboat. That is my point. It is not a conversion. It is just getting smarter, more prudent, and increasing one's chances to keep the Faith.
One does not have to be prudent or wise to save his soul. He could do some really dumb things, trust the wrong people, and end up getting lucky. But going with a PRUDENT and WISE choice of lifeboat to preserve one's Faith during this Crisis increases one's chances of keeping the Faith and not getting swept into countless errors which might cause one to fall into sin and/or material heresy and/or sufferings that God didn't intend for you to endure.
Only God can judge and determine if individual souls "have the Faith" or not. You seem to be talking about material knowledge, which varies in a granular manner from 1 to 1,000,000. But many facts of Liturgy and Church History aren't required to save one's soul. Neither is any particular Catholic private prayer or devotion. There are essentials that are required to be Catholic, not to mention the virtue of Faith which you can't see, and that is what I was referring to when I spoke about the FSSP supporters being "Catholic".
-
We are to avoid the Novus Ordo Mass specifically, and stay aloof from the Conciliar Church, due to the danger of Modernist contagion and risk to our Catholic Faith.
Well, there's got to be more than that. I believe that the Novus Ordo Mass displeases God. Otherwise, if it were merely about the danger to my faith, I believe that I could go receive the Sacraments there without endangering my faith.
-
Yes, it's a mistake to lump in conversative Novus Ordo Catholics with, say, the Orthodox. Those Novus Ordites still profess the Catholic faith, and many of them would never knowingly deny any Catholic dogma or doctrine. Many are merely in material error. Orthodox, on the other hand, profess schism from the Catholic Church. So the Novus Ordo creates a very muddy situation.
-
There is only one Faith that saves souls into Heaven, the Catholic Faith.
Which V2 does not profess...fully. And V2 catholics do not profess fully either.
but there is nothing fundamental that happens when a Catholic "moves upward" into a better lifeboat.
When a novus ordo catholic accepts Tradition, there is an expectation that they are rejecting the V2 modernism and accepting the 100% pure Faith. This is (or should be) a fundamental change in their spiritual life.
Material heretics could still have the Faith. Remember that.
They could have part of the Faith, or 95% of it, but not the full Faith. We must still try to convert the novus ordo and indult catholics who are not fully orthodox. Can they be saved who accept V2 willingly and knowingly? Only God knows but I cannot condone their error, as we all have the duty to correct our ignorance.
There are essentials that are required to be Catholic, not to mention the virtue of Faith which you can't see, and that is what I was referring to when I spoke about the FSSP supporters being "Catholic".
One essential is that "outside the Church there is no salvation". How many V2/indult catholics believe this correctly? Very few.
Let's not forget that much of the "Faith" you see in indult communities comes from former Trads who were properly educated.
-
Agree completely. I was honestly shocked and horrified when I first heard people declare that Catholics who attended Novus Ordo masses were damned schismatics. For the average person they had no reason to believe they should've ran for the hills after Vatican 2. It was, and still is, very possible to go to a Novus Ordo Mass every Sunday as a devout Catholic professing all the dogmas of the Faith, and not realise there's anything wrong with the rite at all. Sure these days we have access to constant streams of news on scandals in the Church and the latest crazy outbursts of Francis, so it's much harder to be ignorant of the Crisis today, but it was very possible for the first few decades of the Crisis and still possible for some today.
And even if someone was aware of the Crisis but truly believed the Novus Ordo rite was valid and proper, and held the Catholic faith in whole, I don't think they're a heretic or a schismatic or the like. In error and needing correction? From our view, and we should endeavour to do that. But some heretic or schismatic damned to Hell, as the Dimonds and co. would tell us? Hardly.
-
And even if someone was aware of the Crisis but truly believed the Novus Ordo rite was valid and proper, and held the Catholic faith in whole,
This is a contradiction. What someone believes is different from the Truth. A Novus Ordo catholic cannot have the "whole" faith, because the novus ordo is not wholly catholic.
I don't think they're a heretic or a schismatic or the like. In error and needing correction? From our view, and we should endeavour to do that.
If someone is in error on the Faith, (and we're talking about substantial error), then by definition, they are either a material heretic or a schismatic, or some combination thereof. And yes, I agree, it's our duty to teach them, if they will listen.
But some heretic or schismatic damned to Hell, as the Dimonds and co. would tell us? Hardly.
It's not our job to damn anyone to hell. It's not even the CHURCH's job to do that. And the Church has NEVER done so, on an individual basis. But...the Church does teach that ignorance of the Truth or a holding to an error (even if the error is held "sincerely") will not suffice for salvation. How this applies to Joe Doe is up to God. But we can't water down Catholic Truths and we cannot say that someone who objectively holds error (even part error) has "the Faith". This is lowering the bar for everyone.
.
We must pray and work tirelessly to convert all those who are not 100% orthodox, even if they think they are. Christ died on the Cross for all men, but only some will accept His grace. For those that will, many are not yet part of His Church, or are only partly. As He told us in Scripture: "And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring..." (John 10:16). It's our job to bring these others to the fullness of the truth and that starts by recognizing their errors so we can instruct the ignorant.
-
This is a contradiction. What someone believes is different from the Truth. A Novus Ordo catholic cannot have the "whole" faith, because the novus ordo is not wholly catholic.
If someone is in error on the Faith, (and we're talking about substantial error), then by definition, they are either a material heretic or a schismatic, or some combination thereof. And yes, I agree, it's our duty to teach them, if they will listen.
The validity of a particular rite is not a dogma of the Church.
It's not our job to damn anyone to hell. It's not even the CHURCH's job to do that. And the Church has NEVER done so, on an individual basis. But...the Church does teach that ignorance of the Truth or a holding to an error (even if the error is held "sincerely") will not suffice for salvation. How this applies to Joe Doe is up to God. But we can't water down Catholic Truths and we cannot say that someone who objectively holds error (even part error) has "the Faith". This is lowering the bar for everyone.
The Church also teaches that the Church cannot lead you into damnation. If you were to be damned for attending the Church's main rite of Mass, it'd be exactly that and the Gates of Hell would have prevailed.
Only way around that would be to declare that all the clergy are invalid and that the Church in Rome is not the Catholic Church at all. Which would still leave us with a problem of how the real Church being non-existent doesn't contradict the indefectibility of the Church.
We must pray and work tirelessly to convert all those who are not 100% orthodox, even if they think they are. Christ died on the Cross for all men, but only some will accept His grace. For those that will, many are not yet part of His Church, or are only partly. As He told us in Scripture: "And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring..." (John 10:16). It's our job to bring these others to the fullness of the truth and that starts by recognizing their errors so we can instruct the ignorant.
That's just not what the term orthodox means. It doesn't apply to the issue of rite at all.
-
Well, let's pray that he receives the grace of conversion before death.
I'M KIDDING! :)
It's a good example of what I mean though.
I personally consider the FSSP to be overall a very compromised group. But the individuals in the group are obviously Catholic! They are very conservative Catholics, certainly in possession of the Catholic Faith.
About the FSSP:
Traditional Catholics, from the very beginning, have held 3 essential principles:
1. Leave the Conciliar Church and Novus Ordo behind completely, regardless of having a Trad option lined up for Mass. Stay home on Sunday if no Tridentine Mass available.
2. Seek out SURE sacraments in "lifeboats": valid priests to offer both the Tridentine Mass and traditional Sacraments, and support them wherever they are, even at independently set up "Traditional chapels" which Rome considers "illicit" or "un-canonical". Treat them for all practical purposes like one's local parish.
3. Believe "I don't need permission from the Pope, or Modernist Rome, to stay Catholic". That is, believe in supplied jurisdiction for Mass and ALL sacraments, and have NO scruples about attaching oneself to, and fully supporting, such Trad chapels and building them up.
Those elements are common to 100% of Traditional Catholics. Anyone who scruples about going to Confession to a Trad priest because he doesn't have official jurisdiction or faculties from the local Bishop, for example, is not a Trad. He might be conservative, but if he doesn't understand that Catholics have a right to keep their Faith, and a need for the Sacraments, they have a lot to learn and therefore are not yet "Traditional Catholic".
Enter the FSSP:
Since part of their essence is "approval/permission from Rome" they are technically not Trad, since such approval was not part of the Trad package from the beginning. But more importantly, it actually contradicts principle #3, above. From the beginning of the movement in the 1970's, getting permission from Rome was certainly NOT one of the elements of the Traditional movement. So the FSSP is a new kind of conservative Catholic at best ("Indult Catholic"? "Latin Mass Catholic"?).
While Sedevacantists ALSO added another element to the Traditional manifesto, "4. The putative pope is not pope at all.", this is different in two main ways:
1. A good number of Trads believed this from the beginning. It was there, just not universal. So they are a specific sub-type of Trad, rather than SOMETHING OTHER THAN Trad.
2. Their additional belief doesn't contradict Trad principles 1-3.
This raises a couple of questions from me."
1: I get the reasoning behind staying home rather than attending a Novus Ordo, but would you also stay home rather than attending a Tridentine Mass at a place like the FSSP if those were your only options? And if so why? Why would doing that increase your chances of saving your soul?
2: What if your only option was a Byzantine Rite liturgy that hasn't been changed with Vatican II, but is still in communion with what you'd call the Conciliar Church? Would you stay home rather than attending and receiving the sacraments there? If so, why, and why do you think that would increase your chances of saving your soul?
-
The validity of a particular rite is not a dogma of the Church....If you were to be damned for attending the Church's main rite of Mass, it'd be exactly that and the Gates of Hell would have prevailed...That's just not what the term orthodox means. It doesn't apply to the issue of rite at all.
You are focusing on the too-narrow issue of the new mass, as being only a change of rite. The issue with new-catholics are the V2 ideals they hold either explicitly or implicitly, consciously or unconsciously, fully or partially. These false ideals (i.e. the heresies of Modernism in V2...AND the heresies promoted in the 50 years since) they will gradually absorb from the V2 priests, who had V2 seminary training, and from the V2 philosophies of many other liberal/progressive "catholics" who write books, speak, etc and who are promoted by such priests, or at least condoned by their silence. Those poor novus ordo/indult catholics "don't know what they don't know" and they are being corrupted SYSTEMATICALLY, in schools, in seminaries, in books, in speeches, in false-translations of encyclicals, etc. All of this happens outside of the 1.5 hrs on sunday at mass. So even if they go to a "conservative" priest who says a "conservative" novus ordo, their faith is being consistently, systematically and slowly attacked every day of the week by numerous wolves who hide in sheep's clothing. The problem is much larger than the new rite.
-
You are focusing on the too-narrow issue of the new mass, as being only a change of rite. The issue with new-catholics are the V2 ideals they hold either explicitly or implicitly, consciously or unconsciously, fully or partially. These false ideals (i.e. the heresies of Modernism in V2...AND the heresies promoted in the 50 years since) they will gradually absorb from the V2 priests, who had V2 seminary training, and from the V2 philosophies of many other liberal/progressive "catholics" who write books, speak, etc and who are promoted by such priests, or at least condoned by their silence. Those poor novus ordo/indult catholics "don't know what they don't know" and they are being corrupted SYSTEMATICALLY, in schools, in seminaries, in books, in speeches, in false-translations of encyclicals, etc. All of this happens outside of the 1.5 hrs on sunday at mass. So even if they go to a "conservative" priest who says a "conservative" novus ordo, their faith is being consistently, systematically and slowly attacked every day of the week by numerous wolves who hide in sheep's clothing. The problem is much larger than the new rite.
What I had in mind of a Catholic who holds the full faith but attends NO would be one who grew up, was catechised before the V2 reforms and then just continued going to Mass without questioning it after V2 - because well, why would they assume the Church had suddenly flown off the rails? Such a person could be completely unaffected by V2 novelties. Furthermore, there are tons of conservative NOs who were born after V2 who reject ecuмenism and BOD, whereas even Trad founders and leaders such as +ABL embraced BOD. So to frame it as "Everyone in the NO must be at least a material heretic and all/most Trads are not" isn't really accurate. While on Cathinfo most people seem to reject BOD, the SSPX do and have always accepted it(and that's in the modern "other religions can be saved" form, not the old catechumen form) and they're probably the biggest chunk of Trads.
Most of the heresies that modern "Catholics" embrace aren't even teachings of the Conciliar Church(although they can still be blamed for their spread).
-
1: I get the reasoning behind staying home rather than attending a Novus Ordo, but would you also stay home rather than attending a Tridentine Mass at a place like the FSSP if those were your only options? And if so why? Why would doing that increase your chances of saving your soul?
If an indult mass were my only option, I wouldn't go. Why? Because those indult priests also say the new mass; and if they don't, they have to publically accept the novus ordo as being "just as good" (and so does everyone in attendance, even the laity, as +Benedict stated in his "motu"). The indult mass is a philosophical "pinch of incense" where you are making the smallest of concessions to the new-religion of V2, which represents Modernism, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and all that is anti-Council of Trent. An indult mass is like a catholic eating a nice piece of apple pie, while their novus ordo neighbors are eating a moldy, rotten apple. The indult catholic knows the new mass is moldy and rotten but they have promised to stay silent and in exchange, they can keep their nice apple pie. Meanwhile, their catholic "friends" are getting sick from the moldy apple and are losing their faith and missing out on untold amounts of grace. Where is the charity in this, watching your friends lose their faith? Where is the Catholic fortitude in keeping silent about error? Where is the Catholic spirit in a one who accepts evil to receive good? Does the end now justify the means? When did this become acceptable?
.
Admittedly, I take a hard-line stance that others may not. However, I'd say that for those of you who don't like to be "extreme", if you decide to go to the indult mass, make that a short-term decision until you can find a True Traditional Mass. I would not stay in a situation where the Indult is your only option. You will eventually get sucked into the V2 vortex and your "traditional catholic" badge of honor will be forever tarnished.
2: What if your only option was a Byzantine Rite liturgy that hasn't been changed with Vatican II, but is still in communion with what you'd call the Conciliar Church? Would you stay home rather than attending and receiving the sacraments there? If so, why, and why do you think that would increase your chances of saving your soul?
I don't know enough about Eastern liturgies to say.
-
What I had in mind of a Catholic who holds the full faith but attends NO would be one who grew up, was catechised before the V2 reforms and then just continued going to Mass without questioning it after V2 - because well, why would they assume the Church had suddenly flown off the rails?
Firstly, that generation is mostly dead. Secondly, i've talked to many in that generation and everyone knew that V2 was a change. The new mass was such a stark, quick and violent rupture with the past that it shocked everyone. No one could hide from the changes. You either accepted them through "obedience" (knowing the changes weren't right), you accepted them because you were a liberal at heart who wanted an "easy" Church, or you walked away from the changes and became a Trad.
Such a person could be completely unaffected by V2 novelties.
The only people who didn't realize that V2 was different, were those who didn't know their faith beforehand.
Furthermore, there are tons of conservative NOs who were born after V2 who reject ecuмenism and BOD,
There are many more heresies of V2 than ecuмenism and BOD. How about "religious liberty"? How about no salvation outside of the Church (this is separate from BOD)? Then there's the moral issues which have/will damn many others, even if they reject ecuмenism and BOD - NFP, false-annullments, gαy civil unions, voting for pro-choice candidates, condoning family members who apostasize and become pagan or protestant, accepting sex-ed in schools, accepting euthanasia, etc, etc. All of these "social issues" are promoted by the local archdiocese. Even if one attends an indult mass, you are exposed to these dangers to your faith, these temptations to sin, these temptations to compromise. These dangers are not inconsequential.
-
Firstly, that generation is mostly dead. Secondly, i've talked to many in that generation and everyone knew that V2 was a change. The new mass was such a stark, quick and violent rupture with the past that it shocked everyone. No one could hide from the changes. You either accepted them through "obedience" (knowing the changes weren't right), you accepted them because you were a liberal at heart who wanted an "easy" Church, or you walked away from the changes and became a Trad.
The only people who didn't realize that V2 was different, were those who didn't know their faith beforehand.
There are many more heresies of V2 than ecuмenism and BOD. How about "religious liberty"? How about no salvation outside of the Church (this is separate from BOD)? Then there's the moral issues which have/will damn many others, even if they reject ecuмenism and BOD - NFP, false-annullments, gαy civil unions, voting for pro-choice candidates, condoning family members who apostasize and become pagan or protestant, accepting sex-ed in schools, accepting euthanasia, etc, etc. All of these "social issues" are promoted by the local archdiocese. Even if one attends an indult mass, you are exposed to these dangers to your faith, these temptations to sin, these temptations to compromise. These dangers are not inconsequential.
First paragraph: I'm assuming he means the group who accepted the changes not because they were liberals at heart, but because of obedience.
Last paragraph: What does "condoning family members who apostasize" mean exactly?
Do you believe Lefebvre rejected no salvation outside the Church? Why or why not?
-
First paragraph: I'm assuming he means the group who accepted the changes not because they were liberals at heart, but because of obedience.
Right, but he was minimizing the changes and arguing that those who lived during the 60s and 70s didn't think the changes were "that bad". That's revisionist history. Anyone who had an 8th grade understanding of the Faith knew that the new mass was more than just "different". It was a revolutionary and shocking thing. Those that quieted their consciences by claiming blind obedience knew that the changes were wrong.
What does "condoning family members who apostasize" mean exactly?
The false idea that a person who stops going to church or switches to protestantism is to be "accepted as they are" because "who are (their family members) to judge". How many families today accept the errors of other family members by their silence or do so for human respect? The same heretical mindset is promoted by V2 that any sincere person can be saved in any religion.
Do you believe Lefebvre rejected no salvation outside the Church?
Of course he didn't reject it. But his understanding of BOD was not 100% orthodox, so his understanding of "no salvation" was faulty. (By the way, this is why BOD was promoted to begin with by the Modernists in the 30s - to water down the "no salvation" doctrine, so they could usher in V2's new ecclesiology, to pave the way for their hoped-for, freemasonic 'one world religion'). The problem with BOD is that saints do mention it, but the Church has never defined it. So having a faulty BOD belief is not the same as having a faulty faith due to the indult (in case that's where you were going with this). Every V2 error has been soundly, clearly and absolutely rejected by a dogmatic statement in the past. Not so with BOD - there's much misunderstanding and gray area.
-
Wow- it seems we are talking levels or degrees of Catholicity- I don't think it works that way.
Of course it's about the Faith, but it's also about validity.
How can an average Catholic remain Catholic without a valid Episcopacy, Priesthood and Sacraments? If these are in doubt aren't you just "playing Catholic"? Wasn't the VII rupture and ambiguity the greatest betrayer of our souls ever?
The Catholics that are in the Indult or the NO maybe individually saved saved by their personal faith (?), but certainly not by doubtful rites and sacraments.
We have an FSSP parish 2 miles away from our home, yet we travel 2 hrs once a month for a "basement" Mass with legitimate Sacraments. There really was no other choice here.
Being in the FSSP is NOT a good place to be. You get the trappings of "tradition" without any assurance of valid sacraments. it's a fakeout. We were there. The Masses were well sung and beautiful, and the Chapel was amazing; the parish life was animated and interesting.But knowing what I know now, I realize that without absolute certainty of what I was receiving Sacramentally, I may as well have been at an Episcopalian service.
You may very well be Catholic and attend those rites, but for how long without the assurance of Sacramental Grace?
I don't think moving past the FSSP is just an upgrade- it's really everything.
-
Right, but he was minimizing the changes and arguing that those who lived during the 60s and 70s didn't think the changes were "that bad". That's revisionist history. Anyone who had an 8th grade understanding of the Faith knew that the new mass was more than just "different". It was a revolutionary and shocking thing. Those that quieted their consciences by claiming blind obedience knew that the changes were wrong.
Right, but even if they were wrong, the question still remains of in what way they're wrong. ie. do you consider them no longer Catholic, or merely in error and endangering their faith. That seems to be what the OP is about, you seem to be saying the former and Matthew seems to be saying the latter.
The false idea that a person who stops going to church or switches to protestantism is to be "accepted as they are" because "who are (their family members) to judge". How many families today accept the errors of other family members by their silence or do so for human respect?
For my own part, I am a new convert (as I've mentioned.) If I have kids some day and one them went Protestant, I would certainly make clear to them that I disapprove, that I seriously fear for their soul, and I would inform them that I intend to pray for their conversion. So I definitely wouldn't just "accept it." Would you go further than that, or is that about the same as you would do? Would you refuse to have anything to do with them?
The same heretical mindset is promoted by V2 that any sincere person can be saved in any religion.Of course he didn't reject it. But his understanding of BOD was not 100% orthodox, so his understanding of "no salvation" was faulty. (By the way, this is why BOD was promoted to begin with by the Modernists in the 30s - to water down the "no salvation" doctrine, so they could usher in V2's new ecclesiology, to pave the way for their hoped-for, freemasonic 'one world religion'). The problem with BOD is that saints do mention it, but the Church has never defined it. So having a faulty BOD belief is not the same as having a faulty faith due to the indult (in case that's where you were going with this). Every V2 error has been soundly, clearly and absolutely rejected by a dogmatic statement in the past. Not so with BOD - there's much misunderstanding and gray area.
To be honest, I'm not going much of anywhere in particular. As I've mentioned, I'm a new convert, and I'm mostly here to learn. I might state tentative opinions in the pursuit/interest of that end, but I'm not trying to prove myself right, or anyone else wrong, on this forum. My goal here is primarily to ask questions, listen, and learn.
1: The reason I asked about Lefebvre is because he clearly saw the notion of "Outside the Church there is no salvation" as compatible with the notion that someone could visibly belong to a false religion and still be "inside the Church" somehow. Your position seems to be that Lefebvre was wrong to say this, but that his erroneously saying so does not constitute either a denial of the dogma or sufficient to make him a heretic. Given that that's the case, I'm not seeing why you wouldn't give the same charitable assessment to those in the indult who believe basically the same thing. To be clear, I'm not saying there isn't a good reason, I'm just saying I don't understand what that reason would be.
2: Does even Vatican II say a sincere person can be saved in any religion? I remember hearing Bishop Barron's whole interview with Shapiro when he said Vatican II says an atheist of good will can be saved according to Lumen Gentium. And my initial reaction was "I have concerns about Lumen Gentium, but I don't think it says that." And then I looked Lumen Gentium up, and sure enough, it doesn't say that. I don't think *even* Vatican II says that someone can be saved without having any supernatural faith at all, furthermore, while Vatican II certainly leaves itself open to the interpretation that someone can in fact be saved while professing a false religion, I don't see how its impossible to read Lumen Gentium as compatible with the notion that if someone with no fault of their own followed the natural law, etc. that God would instead send an angel to such a person rather than leaving them ignorant. Am I wrong about this? And if so, why? (To be clear, I'm not meaning this to be an apology for LG, as it seems to me that the wording was deliberately left very open ended, and that's concerning to me.)
-
Firstly, that generation is mostly dead. Secondly, i've talked to many in that generation and everyone knew that V2 was a change. The new mass was such a stark, quick and violent rupture with the past that it shocked everyone. No one could hide from the changes. You either accepted them through "obedience" (knowing the changes weren't right), you accepted them because you were a liberal at heart who wanted an "easy" Church, or you walked away from the changes and became a Trad.
Anyone in their late 70s and older was probably catechised before V2 was finished, or before V2 reforms were put in place. And most NO masses are mostly the elderly these days, so it's quite a large proportion of people who still attend Mass regularly. The toning down and declawing of catechising in schools was a very gradual process too, my father who went to school after V2 was still catechised well in school and told all the "non-PC" things they'd be afraid to teach today(e.g EENS). So my grandparents had no reason to be concerned with what the Brothers were teaching him, and even in a scenario where the teaching had been toned down, most people would put that down to modernists refusing to teach properly rather than the Church actually abandoning its dogmas.
And people were shocked by the changes to the Mass, but the Church had decreed what the Church had decreed. For most people it was out of question to just stop going to Mass, and they'd be afraid of committing schism by attending societies such as the SSPX if they had even heard of them. For example, Tolkein famously continued to shout out Latin responses in Mass, so he was very upset with the new rite. But he kept attending the NO despite clearly preferring the old rite, and I believe it's for the reasons I listed.
There are many more heresies of V2 than ecuмenism and BOD. How about "religious liberty"? How about no salvation outside of the Church (this is separate from BOD)?
I just named some examples. EENS is not separate from BOD, as BOD(in its modern incarnation at least - that people of non-Catholic religions can be saved) is the rejection of EENS. Or, at least in our view. The SSPX don't agree with that statement of mine.
Then there's the moral issues which have/will damn many others, even if they reject ecuмenism and BOD - NFP, false-annullments, gαy civil unions, voting for pro-choice candidates, condoning family members who apostasize and become pagan or protestant, accepting sex-ed in schools, accepting euthanasia, etc, etc. All of these "social issues" are promoted by the local archdiocese. Even if one attends an indult mass, you are exposed to these dangers to your faith, these temptations to sin, these temptations to compromise. These dangers are not inconsequential.
None of those are actually teachings of even the Conciliar Church though, that was exactly my point and I've already addressed it. Why would someone stop attending their local parish Mass because some other diocese had some pro-gαy event or whatever? What does that have to do with the Mass
-
I just named some examples. EENS is not separate from BOD, as BOD(in its modern incarnation at least - that people of non-Catholic religions can be saved) is the rejection of EENS. Or, at least in our view. The SSPX don't agree with that statement of mine.
But even if you're right about that, do you have the authority to determine that someone is a heretic because they disagree with you on that?
"I know the Church teaches the immaculate conception, but I just don't believe it." If someone says that, they just clearly aren't a Catholic. Like they're straight up denying a dogma. That's clear.
"I believe that Outside the Church there is no salvation, but I disagree with your interpretation of it, [insert reason here]" seems way less clear, either way.
-
But even if you're right about that, do you have the authority to determine that someone is a heretic because they disagree with you on that?
"I know the Church teaches the immaculate conception, but I just don't believe it." If someone says that, they just clearly aren't a Catholic. Like they're straight up denying a dogma. That's clear.
"I believe that Outside the Church there is no salvation, but I disagree with your interpretation of it, [insert reason here]" seems way less clear, either way.
I wasn't making a statement of fact or calling anyone a heretic. I just stated what the modern BOD is and how it contradicts what most of us here interpret EENS to be, and then I even went on to say that the SSPX for example do not agree that BOD conflicts with EENS. We could argue until the cows come home about whether or not BOD is heresy, but it's completely irrelevant to this argument. The point is that what we would call the novelty of BOD is actually believed by a majority of Trads too, so it's a misrepresentation of the issue to paint it as Trad vs NO.
-
What I had in mind of a Catholic who holds the full faith but attends NO would be one who grew up, was catechised before the V2 reforms and then just continued going to Mass without questioning it after V2 - because well, why would they assume the Church had suddenly flown off the rails? Such a person could be completely unaffected by V2 novelties. Furthermore, there are tons of conservative NOs who were born after V2 who reject ecuмenism and BOD, whereas even Trad founders and leaders such as +ABL embraced BOD. So to frame it as "Everyone in the NO must be at least a material heretic and all/most Trads are not" isn't really accurate. While on Cathinfo most people seem to reject BOD, the SSPX do and have always accepted it(and that's in the modern "other religions can be saved" form, not the old catechumen form) and they're probably the biggest chunk of Trads.
Most of the heresies that modern "Catholics" embrace aren't even teachings of the Conciliar Church(although they can still be blamed for their spread).
My parents fall into the first category, one that is quickly dying out. Remember, Vat. 2 finished in 1965. There are many still living who were young adults, teens, or children at that time, or who came of catechism age under John XXIII up through the early 70s. IOW, too young to know, or devout, but poorly catchised. My folks are in their 90's and still attend the novus ordo, health permitting. They were both poorly educated on Catholic dogma and know very little of Church history, no fault of their own. They were raised, like nearly all Catholics of their day, to be obedient to authority, especially Church authority, agree or not! They learned their prayers, and the catechism by rote, not meaning. They were tested for the Sacraments by rote recitation of the catechism.
Those who came later weren't taught dogma, either. They threw out the old catechisms, threw out the rote, and were taught touchy-feely pablum and communist social justice. The sheep were first set up to accept lies, and the lies were fed to their off-spring. My parents won't attend the Old Mass, even though I think they want to, because they asked "Fr. Mike" about it and he said it was a mortal sin! The only place they could go, although he didn't recommend it, was to the diocesan approved Indult, a 60 mile drive one way. That was ten years ago when I began making biweekly drives through two states to hear Mass. Prior to this, I'd tried out various Protestant churches, went to the novus ordo after reading Jurgen's Lives of the Saints---all of it, the original edition. After a short time, I saw that Vat. 2 had all but destroyed the true faith, and that I'd been gypped out of my religion. It resulted in arguments that always ended up with the good fruit the Catholic practices with which my parents raised us, still practice themselves, even my siblings do not. Despite them attending the new mass, I have no doubt they have the Faith. Their parish is still conservative enough, Fr. Mike, notwithstanding, that Rosaries are seen among the older folks, and one can receive communion on the tongue, if desired. They always go to the priest's line, not the aging hippie lady eucharistic minister. They just lack the grace of understanding. There's a built in resistance to studying dogma and scripture without the direct guidance of a qualified religious. They say it's a result of my foray into Protestantism, that it's not Catholic. And under normal circuмstances, they're right.
Still, for anyone to ascertain my parents are bound for hell is extremely presumptuous. Not one of us knows for sure where even we ourselves will go, much less the souls of persons unknown to us.
-
With regard to the core dogmas, there are more Feeneyites within the Novus Ordo than among Traditional Catholics. What other error would disqualify them from being Catholics?
-
With regard to the core dogmas, there are more Feeneyites within the Novus Ordo than among Traditional Catholics. What other error would disqualify them from being Catholics?
Honestly, I don't get this, but given that that's the case, I don't know how to agree with the strict "the Novus Ordo is a different religion" approach rather than the more modest "Vatican II is ambiguous enough that its very easy to read in a heterodox way.
Are there any explicit dogmas on religious liberty? Even if they are, would getting that wrong disqualify one from being Catholic? (even if Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors was infallible, couldn't someone think it wasn't? Or couldn't someone propose a way to reconcile DH and Syllabus of Errors? Even if doing so was silly, would it make them not Catholic?)
Do you take the position that only Feeneyites are Catholic?
-
the question still remains of in what way they're wrong. ie. do you consider them no longer Catholic, or merely in error and endangering their faith
They are in error; material heresy. Thus, they do not possess the Faith fully, in general. I never said they weren't catholic.
So I definitely wouldn't just "accept it." Would you go further than that, or is that about the same as you would do? Would you refuse to have anything to do with them?
It depends on the situation. If you had some family member who was gαy, I wouldn't allow them to bring over a partner to the house. This applies to an unmarried couple as well. If a catholic relative simply stopped going to church, there's no reason to shun them socially unless they're activist about it. Your standards might be stricter if you have children who could be scandalized. You want to be as charitable as you can be, if the situation allows.
1: The reason I asked about Lefebvre is because he clearly saw the notion of "Outside the Church there is no salvation" as compatible with the notion that someone could visibly belong to a false religion and still be "inside the Church" somehow. Your position seems to be that Lefebvre was wrong to say this, but that his erroneously saying so does not constitute either a denial of the dogma or sufficient to make him a heretic.
It's hard for me to label +ABL because 1) I never talked to him personally nor was I able to get clarification on his quotes, 2) quotes can be taken out of context, 3) He flip-flopped on this issue so it's hard to say what he definitively thought.
At best, he was simply playing devil's advocate and engaging in theological speculation. At worse, at a few points in time, he made comments that were objectively and materially heretical. This does not make him a formal heretic, but just wrong on a particular point. Further, as I said before, the issue of BOD and salvation is a complex one which the Church has not adequately explained.
Given that that's the case, I'm not seeing why you wouldn't give the same charitable assessment to those in the indult who believe basically the same thing. To be clear, I'm not saying there isn't a good reason, I'm just saying I don't understand what that reason would be.
Comparing +ABL with an indult catholic is like comparing an apple to a piece of rice - they have nothing in common. The problem with the typical indult catholic is that they have MULTIPLE and MANY unorthodox views, on many basic catholic beliefs. The debate over BOD has a complex history. The indult errors include the entire V2 council, the new-theology of the new mass, and the acceptance of these errors as "normal". If...and this is a big if...the only error held by an indult'er were the BOD issue, they would still be unorthodox due to their public acceptance of the new mass, which is a requirement to attend the indult.
furthermore, while Vatican II certainly leaves itself open to the interpretation that someone can in fact be saved while professing a false religion,
The lack of clarity in preaching the Truth is just as dangerous, maybe moreso, than a full-blown heresy.
-
Anyone in their late 70s and older was probably catechised before V2 was finished, or before V2 reforms were put in place. And most NO masses are mostly the elderly these days, so it's quite a large proportion of people who still attend Mass regularly. The toning down and declawing of catechising in schools was a very gradual process too, my father who went to school after V2 was still catechised well in school and told all the "non-PC" things they'd be afraid to teach today(e.g EENS). So my grandparents had no reason to be concerned with what the Brothers were teaching him, and even in a scenario where the teaching had been toned down, most people would put that down to modernists refusing to teach properly rather than the Church actually abandoning its dogmas.
The issue of changes to schooling is separate from the changes to the Mass. The new mass came first, and was the priority. All else came after the new mass was already accepted. If you were corrupted by the new mass, your Faith was already damaged (and for many, on life support), even if your schooling was mostly "normal".
And people were shocked by the changes to the Mass, but the Church had decreed what the Church had decreed. For most people it was out of question to just stop going to Mass, and they'd be afraid of committing schism by attending societies such as the SSPX if they had even heard of them. For example, Tolkein famously continued to shout out Latin responses in Mass, so he was very upset with the new rite. But he kept attending the NO despite clearly preferring the old rite, and I believe it's for the reasons I listed.
Traditionalism started day 1 after Vatican 2. Many catholics of this generation left new-rome and many priests did as well, in order to preserve Tradition. Your description above is revisionist history. What Tolkien did, in his particular country, is of no consequence to what 1,000s of Catholics did in America to keep the Faith.
Why would someone stop attending their local parish Mass because some other diocese had some pro-gαy event or whatever? What does that have to do with the Mass?
Traditionalism is about MORE than the mass. Keeping the Faith is more important than the mass. A catholic cannot attend his indult mass, where Fr X says a reverent liturgy, and ignore the fact that 2 hours later, Fr Y comes in and dances around (ON THE SAME ALTAR) and makes jokes and hands out wine and cookies. Or worse, Fr X says both the indult AND the new mass, which is the height of hypocrisy. This type of action is inconsistent with catholicism - you cannot accept evil to get good. The end (having a reverent liturgy) does not justify the means (accepting the abominable new mass as the "ordinary" form).
-
Comparing +ABL with an indult catholic is like comparing an apple to a piece of rice - they have nothing in common. The problem with the typical indult catholic is that they have MULTIPLE and MANY unorthodox views, on many basic catholic beliefs. The debate over BOD has a complex history. The indult errors include the entire V2 council, the new-theology of the new mass, and the acceptance of these errors as "normal". If...and this is a big if...the only error held by an indult'er were the BOD issue, they would still be unorthodox due to their public acceptance of the new mass, which is a requirement to attend the indult.
OK, besides the EENS issue, what other errors does an indult Catholic necessarily hold to?
-
Traditionalism is about MORE than the mass.
Much more.
It's also about doctrine, belief (internal adherence and external profession), piety, spirituality, and living more than superficially the Traditional liturgical seasons.
It's about knowing WHY we believe as we do.
It's about understanding and assenting to the fundamental superiority of the Traditional Mass, with its vertical spirituality ordered to mankind's obedient relationship to God, as His subjects. We should know these truths well enough to be able to explain them to other Catholics and non-Catholics.
It's about a conscious hunger and dependency on all of that, which should permeate our identity.
Traditional Catholicism is not about a patchwork of beliefs and practices -- some from the N.O., some from Traditional Orders -- but a seamless identity.
Simply because of age, most trads of today were poorly catechized as children and adolescents. Those in the best position are the ones who grew up with genuine Tradition and excellent catechesis, both, and have remained traditional. (Lots of trad-trained elderly folks are N.O.)
If a trad was fortunate enough to convert from outside the faith through a traditionally trained and formed priest, their catechesis is probably better than someone who went simply from the almost non-existent catechesis in the N.O. to attending the TLM, rather than actually learning about Tradition.
Trad priests should actually insist on examining their parishioners or flocks as to their level of knowledge, and those needing catechesis should be required to attend, under his supervision and direction. JMO.
-
We had received excellent Catholic education from Father Fahnestock and Father Kevin Robinson of SSPX. There was plenty of reading materials available too. (And from our beloved diocesan pastor who died recently. ).
-
The issue of changes to schooling is separate from the changes to the Mass. The new mass came first, and was the priority. All else came after the new mass was already accepted. If you were corrupted by the new mass, your Faith was already damaged (and for many, on life support), even if your schooling was mostly "normal".
So then you admit that someone could be traditionally educated in their Catholic faith even after the promulgation of New Mass. How exactly does that help your argument at all? If anything it's the opposite, as it provides further evidence that attending the New Mass and adhering to material heresies are not inextricably linked.
Traditionalism started day 1 after Vatican 2. Many catholics of this generation left new-rome and many priests did as well, in order to preserve Tradition. Your description above is revisionist history. What Tolkien did, in his particular country, is of no consequence to what 1,000s of Catholics did in America to keep the Faith.
And what exactly did those 1,000s of Catholics do? You keep falsely implying again and again that going to the new Mass means you accept abortion, gαy marriage, etc. etc. when none of those things are even teachings of the Conciliar Church, as bad as it is. A NO Catholic can likewise disagree with the Pope's ecuмenism without thinking that's a reason to not go to Mass. Whereas the largest Trad society in the world which the majority of Trad laity attends, openly teaches the most liberal form of BOD. So again, ignorance on the validity of NO does not automatically make you a material heretic, nor does being a Trad mean you're 100% orthodox.
Traditionalism is about MORE than the mass. Keeping the Faith is more important than the mass. A catholic cannot attend his indult mass, where Fr X says a reverent liturgy, and ignore the fact that 2 hours later, Fr Y comes in and dances around (ON THE SAME ALTAR) and makes jokes and hands out wine and cookies. Or worse, Fr X says both the indult AND the new mass, which is the height of hypocrisy. This type of action is inconsistent with catholicism - you cannot accept evil to get good. The end (having a reverent liturgy) does not justify the means (accepting the abominable new mass as the "ordinary" form).
Now for some reason you've gone off on a tangent here and you're attacking Indults rather than NOers. NOers don't realise their Mass is invalid, and they don't consider it "wine and cookies". Arguing that they're knowingly doing evil because they "know" their Mass is invalid is ridiculous, they don't know their Mass is invalid, or else they wouldn't be attending it.
-
So then you admit that someone could be traditionally educated in their Catholic faith even after the promulgation of New Mass. How exactly does that help your argument at all? If anything it's the opposite, as it provides further evidence that attending the New Mass and adhering to material heresies are not inextricably linked.
The new mass teaches a new theology; it is a protestantization of the mass; it is an abomination which is anti-Trent and anti-Catholic in its liturgy. One can have all the schooling in the world, but if you attend the new mass (or accept it, as the indult'ers do), you are accepting error. This acceptance, in and of itself, is a theological and doctrinal problem.
And what exactly did those 1,000s of Catholics do?
?? There's plenty of books out there which related the history of Traditionalists in the 60s and 70s. How they left their diocese (or rather, most of them were kicked out of their churches for challenging the priests and bishops and causing "disruptions".) They left the new religion and found priests who did the same. They had masses in hotels, basements and garages. They slowly grew in organization until they eventually bought chapels and then started schools. Once +ABL consecrated the 4 bishops in the mid 80s and there was a growth of priests, the sspx helped to spread the faith and say mass at these chapels that were started by catholics in the 70s. Those of the 60s, 70s and early 80s laid the groundwork for Traditionalism as we see it today.
You keep falsely implying again and again that going to the new Mass means you accept abortion, gαy marriage, etc. etc. when none of those things are even teachings of the Conciliar Church, as bad as it is.
Your view of the indult mass is very myopic. The new-bishops do not have the faith; new-rome does not have the faith; most new-priests do not have the faith; even most indult-priests do not have the FULL faith. You seem to think that one can attend the indult mass for 2 hrs on sunday and not be affected by all the other unorthodox, scandalous, blasphemous, heretical ideals, people, priests and information that engulfs a diocese the other 166 hours of the week. Are you denying that new-rome promotes a gαy-friendly atmosphere? Do you deny that after the Synod, new-rome promotes a divorce-friendly atmosphere? Do you deny that new-rome promotes an NFP/immoral atmosphere? I could go on and on. No one who goes to a diocese approved church can avoid these scandals, which are a temptation to one's Faith, an unnecessary occasion of sin.
Generally speaking, human nature only improves to the level of its environment. We owe God our best; we owe God the best liturgy, the best schools, the best of ourselves - which is to become a saint. Generally speaking, the indult catholics receive a mix of old and new theology, a mix of truth and half-truth, a mix of orthodoxy and novelty and this is not the best that God deserves. It is the not the best for their souls. God demands our "first fruits", especially in religion.
-
We had received excellent Catholic education from Father Fahnestock and Father Kevin Robinson of SSPX. There was plenty of reading materials available too. (And from our beloved diocesan pastor who died recently. ).
I apologize if my own remarks insinuated anything negative about anyone who came to traditionalism "late" (i.e. at some time in adulthood). They were definitely not meant to imply a lack of education/knowledge on the part of adult trads as a whole. I was referring more to the unevenness of a typical trad community: some quite steeped in it, others focused mostly or only on the Mass, etc.
:)
-
The new mass teaches a new theology; it is a protestantization of the mass; it is an abomination which is anti-Trent and anti-Catholic in its liturgy. One can have all the schooling in the world, but if you attend the new mass (or accept it, as the indult'ers do), you are accepting error. This acceptance, in and of itself, is a theological and doctrinal problem.
How exactly does the Mass itself teach theology?
?? There's plenty of books out there which related the history of Traditionalists in the 60s and 70s. How they left their diocese (or rather, most of them were kicked out of their churches for challenging the priests and bishops and causing "disruptions".) They left the new religion and found priests who did the same. They had masses in hotels, basements and garages. They slowly grew in organization until they eventually bought chapels and then started schools. Once +ABL consecrated the 4 bishops in the mid 80s and there was a growth of priests, the sspx helped to spread the faith and say mass at these chapels that were started by catholics in the 70s. Those of the 60s, 70s and early 80s laid the groundwork for Traditionalism as we see it today.
What on Earth are you on about? What does any of this have to do with people attending NO masses?
Your view of the indult mass is very myopic. The new-bishops do not have the faith; new-rome does not have the faith; most new-priests do not have the faith; even most indult-priests do not have the FULL faith.
You're a sedevacantist then. That's swell and all, but most Trads aren't and don't agree with you there. So while conservative NOers might recognise and follow a false hierarchy, so do the SSPX and most Trads at the end of the day. So again, not something that only they are guilty of.
You seem to think that one can attend the indult mass for 2 hrs on sunday and not be affected by all the other unorthodox, scandalous, blasphemous, heretical ideals, people, priests and information that engulfs a diocese the other 166 hours of the week. Are you denying that new-rome promotes a gαy-friendly atmosphere? Do you deny that after the Synod, new-rome promotes a divorce-friendly atmosphere? Do you deny that new-rome promotes an NFP/immoral atmosphere? I could go on and on. No one who goes to a diocese approved church can avoid these scandals, which are a temptation to one's Faith, an unnecessary occasion of sin.
First of all, indults are irrelevant and you need to stop bringing them up as strawmen. Secondly, your strange idea that every diocese is hosting gαy pride parades every Tuesday is both untrue and absurd. You live in some wacko world where every NO church is some gαy orgy zoo. It's not. Why should sins and sacrileges of other dioceses matter to some random Catholic going to the same parish that has nothing to do with that nonsense that he's been going to for decades? As for the promotions of new Rome, again what has that to do with the Mass? The Mass is separate from the heresies of Bishops and the Pope. You could argue that they should realise the Pope is a formal heretic and therefore not the Pope(and therefore the NO isn't valid), but the SSPX and the majority of Trads still recognise the Pope despite of his heresies. So random NOer #1296056 is no more guilty of those things for recognising the Pope, in spite of his false teachings, than SSPX attendee #23275
Generally speaking, human nature only improves to the level of its environment. We owe God our best; we owe God the best liturgy, the best schools, the best of ourselves - which is to become a saint. Generally speaking, the indult catholics receive a mix of old and new theology, a mix of truth and half-truth, a mix of orthodoxy and novelty and this is not the best that God deserves. It is the not the best for their souls. God demands our "first fruits", especially in religion.
What do indults have to do with this at all? Read the title of the thread again.
-
What do indults have to do with this at all?
I've been talking about the indult mass since the beginning of this thread. Not sure how you missed those many references. If you want to go to the new mass or the indult latin mass, no one is stopping you. If you think you can easily save your soul through these masses, then you have an obligation to be "in communion with new-rome" and to follow your local bishop. You seem to defend the indult quite strongly, and you seem to feel that many of them know their faith well enough. Good luck with that.
-
I've been talking about the indult mass since the beginning of this thread. Not sure how you missed those many references. If you want to go to the new mass or the indult latin mass, no one is stopping you. If you think you can easily save your soul through these masses, then you have an obligation to be "in communion with new-rome" and to follow your local bishop. You seem to defend the indult quite strongly, and you seem to feel that many of them know their faith well enough. Good luck with that.
I've never mentioned the Indult at all except to ask you why you were talking about them. The thread was originally about the Novus Ordo Mass, as it says in the title, and it was you who responded to me, not the reverse, so don't pretend like it was me who dragged the conversation off-topic.
-
The thread was originally about the Novus Ordo Mass,
The thread was about the new mass but also conciliar catholics, which Matthew mentioned in the 1st post, which includes indult catholics, many of whom go to both the new mass and the latin mass.
-
The thread was about the new mass but also conciliar catholics, which Matthew mentioned in the 1st post, which includes indult catholics, many of whom go to both the new mass and the latin mass.
And then I made a post about NOers to which you responded. And then you went off on a huge tangent about Indults and put words in my mouth about them.
-
Indult catholics ARE novus ordo catholics. One day they go to the new mass; another day they go to the indult. Maybe they go to the indult mostly. But they are all infected by new rome's modernism; they all have doubtful priests; they all have doubtful sacraments; they all accept V2. Some to a lesser degree than others, but still. They share more similarities than differences.
-
I've never mentioned the Indult at all except to ask you why you were talking about them. The thread was originally about the Novus Ordo Mass, as it says in the title, and it was you who responded to me, not the reverse, so don't pretend like it was me who dragged the conversation off-topic.
It was originally my fault, because I asked Matthew why he thought it was better to stay home than to go to an Indult mass such as an FSSP.
-
Agree completely. I was honestly shocked and horrified when I first heard people declare that Catholics who attended Novus Ordo masses were damned schismatics. For the average person they had no reason to believe they should've ran for the hills after Vatican 2. It was, and still is, very possible to go to a Novus Ordo Mass every Sunday as a devout Catholic professing all the dogmas of the Faith, and not realise there's anything wrong with the rite at all. Sure these days we have access to constant streams of news on scandals in the Church and the latest crazy outbursts of Francis, so it's much harder to be ignorant of the Crisis today, but it was very possible for the first few decades of the Crisis and still possible for some today.
And even if someone was aware of the Crisis but truly believed the Novus Ordo rite was valid and proper, and held the Catholic faith in whole, I don't think they're a heretic or a schismatic or the like. In error and needing correction? From our view, and we should endeavour to do that. But some heretic or schismatic damned to Hell, as the Dimonds and co. would tell us? Hardly.
Just going to quote my own first post to show how I only said rite and Mass about a dozen times, and there's no way it could be misinterpreted as referring to or including Indults.
Your Indult strawman tangent still has 0 relevance whatsoever to our argument no matter how much you try to put words in my mouth and twist what I said.