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".

   



 

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.

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.

Promotion of heresy is not traditional.

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?

The NO priests, IMO can be assumed that most of them are useful idiots, Modernist dupes - perhaps only a few are the enemies of God outright. They are not the definition of  traditional Catholic priests simply because Trads do not celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass one day a week or month, then a mockery of it the rest of the time. Nor do traditional Catholics participate likewise.

By their example, the indult priests are among the leaders of the compromisers. For the indulter, there is no such a thing as discouraging schism by celebrating the indult - pretty much whoever does not accept the NO charade of the True Mass is in schism. The indult priest would never even be allowed to celebrate the indult without first pledging his first allegiance to and full acceptance of the Great Sacrilege.


 

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.

That's one fine example right there of why no one should participate at an indult.
The entire Novus Ordo, being a modernist invention, is diametrically opposed to tradition - it is the very definition of anti-tradition -  odd place to find priests who are very traditional don't you think?

Is it also odd for very traditional priests to make incessant promotion of popes who were out and out heretics - No?

See how the indult messed with your thinking? You give a great example of why we should avoid the entire NO, indult and all, like the plague that it is.
The NO effects everybody differently - but make no mistake about it, it effects everybody.

Quote from: TKGS

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.

Where does that put the validity of the SSPX s Mass s  when the Priests are in communion with (una cuм) with the heretice Pope , Francis I ... ?

Just wondering ... ??

I would say that they are completely and undoubtedly valid.  A priest is not a heretic nor a schismatic when he mentions the name of the man he believes to be pope in the Canon.  Please note that this is a very narrow issue and applies only to this one aspect.  I do not here comment on the priest who holds a heresy of the Conciliar pope though I am not aware of any SSPX priests who do so.

Thank you all for chiming in. You've been a great help.

Did the Latin Mass change in any way, though? What is the 1962 missal exactly?

Quote from: TKGS

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.

Where does that put the validity of the SSPX s Mass s  when the Priests are in communion with (una cuм) with the heretice Pope , Francis I ... ?

Just wondering ... ??

The validity is there but the feasibility is what would be put into question.  Objectively if in fact Francis is a heretic and therefore not Pope, offering Mass "one with" or "together with/una cuм" him would be schismatic.  But the Priest does not intend to be schismatic we hope, and the reason why he is cut off from Rome is because he protests what Rome is doing, so his heart is in the right place and he cannot be condemned the same as the Orthodox who reject the Papacy itself rather than mistakenly accepting a heretic as Pope.  A lot of this stuff comes down to conscience.

I personally would never go to an una cuм Mass as that unites one to the head heretic of the Novus Ordo Church, no one is obliged to go to such a Mass.  But it could be argued that while not being obliged to go to such a Mass one could benefit spiritually from it.  But even if that is the case one must avoid the poison spouted from their pulpits, "We must obey the Pope except when we shouldn't"  "We must always listen to the Pope except when we shouldn't"  Then following their example that it is okay to disobey Popes for decades at a time and to reject what they bound on the Church gives people an unCatholic way of thinking and acting.  Additionally you not all their priests are validly ordained but most of them are, and when you ask some of them they get testy even though you have every right to know who ordained them and in what rite they were ordained.

This is why the SV issue is not small potatoes.  Everything hinges on it.

Not having a valid Pope for this long screws everything up.

And no one realizing we have not had a valid Pope for this long makes it even worse.  Everyone is forced into a unCatholic way of thinking and acting and is confused over things they would not be confused about if they realized the V2 heads of the Vatican Institution have not been and are not Popes.