Author Topic: Difference between Latin Masses (Read 3198 times)

LoverOfTradition · « **on:** November 06, 2013, 10:06:39 PM »

What's the difference between the Indult/Diocesan Latin Masses and the Latin Masses said at the SSPX? I'm fairly new to the SSPX and am still learning.

Thanks for your help.

Stubborn · « **Reply #1 on:** November 07, 2013, 05:27:50 AM »

You can find plenty on this particular subject through google, but in a nutshell, while ascetically there may be no difference at all, the difference lies in the fact that the indult/motu being a compromise with modernism, has as it's singular purpose to lead those who participate into the same compromise - and it has enjoyed much success.

If you think this makes no sense, all you need to do is look only so far as Fisheaters and you will find the place is filled with compromisers who wave both flags, i.e. many of them end up defending the Great Sacrilege for it's assumed validity while claiming the TLM is the superior form.

Funny that they never stop to consider that if everyone compromised back in the late 60s/early 70s till even today as they do, that there would be no "superior" form. The only way the TLM has survived till now is due to those courageous Catholics who remained uncompromising and would have nothing to do with the NO and it's new "mass" - including the so called "indult".

TKGS · « **Reply #2 on:** November 07, 2013, 06:39:06 AM »

Provided the SSPX priest was ordained by one of the Society bishops, the biggest difference is that the SSPX Mass is said by an undoubtedly valid Catholic priest while the indult/diocesan Mass is said by a priest whose orders are, at best, doubtful because he was ordained in the new rite by a bishop who was likely consecrated in the new rite.

Thus, with the SSPX traditional Mass, you have the sacrifice of Calvary, the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ.

With the indult/diocesan traditional Mass, you have a layman at the altar pretending to be a priest and you have a very nice Last Supper re-enactment and you end up with bread and wine.

soulguard · « **Reply #3 on:** November 07, 2013, 07:09:03 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

You can find plenty on this particular subject through google, but in a nutshell, while ascetically there may be no difference at all, the difference lies in the fact that the indult/motu being a compromise with modernism, has as it's singular purpose to lead those who participate into the same compromise - and it has enjoyed much success.

If you think this makes no sense, all you need to do is look only so far as Fisheaters and you will find the place is filled with compromisers who wave both flags, i.e. many of them end up defending the Great Sacrilege for it's assumed validity while claiming the TLM is the superior form.

Funny that they never stop to consider that if everyone compromised back in the late 60s/early 70s till even today as they do, that there would be no "superior" form. The only way the TLM has survived till now is due to those courageous Catholics who remained uncompromising and would have nothing to do with the NO and it's new "mass" - including the so called "indult".

So are you saying Stubborn that the priests at the Indult only pretend to be traditional while in fact trying to destroy tradition?
Is it not their opinion that by the Indult they discourage what they falsely call Schism?

I only went to the Indult but I found the priests there very traditional. The only thing I didn't like was their incessant promotion of popes who were out and out heretics.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #4 on:** November 07, 2013, 07:51:17 AM »

Does anyone here have any idea how many SSPX priests are converts from the novus ordo and, hence, "ordained" by a novus ordo bishop?

I would guess the number is very small.