Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: trad123 on October 01, 2022, 03:55:41 PM
-
Does the Indult comprise part of the traditional Catholic movement?
Vote.
-
No, as the term Traditional (with a capital T) reflects the fact that Traditional Catholics reject the Conciliar orientation as being a rupture with Tradition, and a mere preference for the Tridentine Mass is simply traditional with a lower-case t. This is where the term Traditional comes from, a term used to describe the fact that we remain faithful to Tradition rather than going along with the V2 revolution, which we see as a rejection of Tradition.
Now, there may be some who go to Indult or Motu or even FFSP Masses who do believe that the NOM and the Conciliar Church have broken with Tradition, but the Indult/Motu in principle is aligned with the notion that it's a mere preference, as it suits our personal spirituality better.
-
I know this isn't the point, but the idea of a traditional Catholic movement is a purely political idea. Movements do things and go places. Traditionalists should, by definition, resist 'movement.' I do not regard myself as part of any traditionalist movement, but I DEFINITELY would regard the indult as part of a traditional Catholic movement. They are highly political and constantly attempting to 'change the Church.'
.
Indult types are not only PART of the traditional movement, I'd say they ARE the traditional movement. The rest of us take a traditionalist POSITION, which is different.
-
Is there still true indult ? Didn't BXVI's SP free the TLM of indult ?
And Bergiglio's TC is suppression rather than indult. Correct ?
-
So, for the people who voted yes, do you have an explanation?
-
So, for the people who voted yes, do you have an explanation?
Well, not being sure what the traditional Catholic movement is, I’ve know families who attended indult and they were very traditional. Personally, I think everyone should be flipping out and vehemently advocating getting the Church a Pope but zero people are doing that. How are they any less a part of the traditional Catholic movement than say SSPX or SSPX Resistance or Sedevacantists? Or maybe it’s a political movement?
-
So, for the people who voted yes, do you have an explanation?
I voted yes and gave my reasoning above.
-
Is there still true indult ? Didn't BXVI's SP free the TLM of indult ?
And Bergiglio's TC is suppression rather than indult. Correct ?
"Indult" has morphed into a colloquial term for the TLM being celebrated under diocesan auspices, or those of the FSSP, ICKSP, and so on. It's technically inaccurate, but it's become a kind of shorthand.
-
I personally attend a local ICKSP oratory because it's all that's around and I believe that new holy orders are valid. But I reject the new mass as offensive to God at worst and deficient and dangerously ambiguous at best. I also view vatican 2 as heretical at worst and dangerously ambiguous at best. Either way I view the new mass and vatican 2 as something that needs to go. Even if somethings isn't technically heretical, if it's constantly used to undermine the true faith because of ambiguities it's got to go. Like the CCC saying that Muslims claim to worship the same God. Just in that sentence it can be said that it's not heretical because it says they claim to worship the same God. It doesn't say they do worship the same God. But if you read everything after, all the Muslim ass kissing, you are left believing Catholics and Muslims both worship the same God anyway.
-
"Indult" has morphed into a colloquial term for the TLM being celebrated under diocesan auspices, or those of the FSSP, ICKSP, and so on. It's technically inaccurate, but it's become a kind of shorthand.
Ok, fair enough,
Thanks
-
I know this isn't the point, but the idea of a traditional Catholic movement is a purely political idea. Movements do things and go places. Traditionalists should, by definition, resist 'movement.' I do not regard myself as part of any traditionalist movement, but I DEFINITELY would regard the indult as part of a traditional Catholic movement. They are highly political and constantly attempting to 'change the Church.'
.
Indult types are not only PART of the traditional movement, I'd say they ARE the traditional movement. The rest of us take a traditionalist POSITION, which is different.
What would be examples of them trying "to change the Church"?
-
I personally attend a local ICKSP oratory because it's all that's around and I believe that new holy orders are valid. But I reject the new mass as offensive to God at worst and deficient and dangerously ambiguous at best. I also view vatican 2 as heretical at worst and dangerously ambiguous at best. Either way I view the new mass and vatican 2 as something that needs to go. Even if somethings isn't technically heretical, if it's constantly used to undermine the true faith because of ambiguities it's got to go. Like the CCC saying that Muslims claim to worship the same God. Just in that sentence it can be said that it's not heretical because it says they claim to worship the same God. It doesn't say they do worship the same God. But if you read everything after, all the Muslim ass kissing, you are left believing Catholics and Muslims both worship the same God anyway.
If you were pressed on your position in a debate what would you fall back on as safer and more likely? All the people I heard say V2 is maybe heretical when pressed deny it is heretical but only ambiguous. This tends to be the indult position which claims that V2 wasn't the problem but the "spirit of V2".
I hope this 10-minute video will settle your doubts about the heresy of Vatican II: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0kQJBnP5wE
I recommend reading this PDF of some of the main heresies of V2 as well.
Also, much more important than recognizing explicit heresies in Vatican II is for you to get the true sacraments. I beg you to reconsider the validity of the new rite and read Fr Cekada's study.
God bless you.
-
I personally attend a local ICKSP oratory because it's all that's around and I believe that new holy orders are valid. But I reject the new mass as offensive to God at worst and deficient and dangerously ambiguous at best. I also view vatican 2 as heretical at worst and dangerously ambiguous at best. Either way I view the new mass and vatican 2 as something that needs to go. Even if somethings isn't technically heretical, if it's constantly used to undermine the true faith because of ambiguities it's got to go. Like the CCC saying that Muslims claim to worship the same God. Just in that sentence it can be said that it's not heretical because it says they claim to worship the same God. It doesn't say they do worship the same God. But if you read everything after, all the Muslim ass kissing, you are left believing Catholics and Muslims both worship the same God anyway.
As I mentioned, I'm sure there are some who assist at "Indult" Masses who are nevertheless Traditional (rejecting V2, the NOM, etc.) ... but I was speaking about the movement in general ... just as I'm sure that a fair number of sedevacantists assist at SSPX chapels, but you wouldn't therefore characterize SSPX as a sedevacantist movement.
-
As I mentioned, I'm sure there are some who assist at "Indult" Masses who are nevertheless Traditional (rejecting V2, the NOM, etc.) ... but I was speaking about the movement in general ... just as I'm sure that a fair number of sedevacantists assist at SSPX chapels, but you wouldn't therefore characterize SSPX as a sedevacantist movement.
Yes I understand. There are many at my church who merly prefer the latin mass. And the priest never speaks out from the pulpit. I'd much rather be attending a more traditional chapel. I've been attending a byzantine parish lately but I wouldn't consider the priest traditional. Seems to be a neo conservative. At least the mass is traditional and he doesn't say anything heretical. Something that bothers me though is I think they officially venerate saints that were never catholic like gregory palamas.
-
Archbishop Lefebvre had permission to consecrate one bishop and instead he consecrated four. So, after years of trying to have an 'experiment with Tradition', Pope Saint John Paul II the Great instead excommunicated +Lefebvre and his four bishops. Almost instantaneously, he then introduced/allowed the formation of the FSSP from among the former SSPX clergy who thought +Lefebvre had gone too far.
The reason for its existence is/was to pull adherents away from the SSPX (like establishing parishes everywhere the SSPX is set up) and the archbishop said to stay away from them (I don't have that quote handy but maybe someone here could help out). Though there are many pious laymen and well-intentioned priests in the FSSP, the organization itself wasn't/isn't about Doctrine but about the Latin Mass and was off track from the beginning.
My vote is No.
-
No.
Generally, those who attend the Indult/diocesan Mass will also view the Novus Ordo as perfectly legitimate and have no real qualms outside of accidental preference, aka "smells and bells", and don't have much notion of the substantial differences which make the NOM not even a Catholic rite, let alone Mass. They accept the counter Church and its teachings as legitimate, placing them outside the realm of Catholic tradition, orthodoxy, in the Novus Ordo modernist heterodoxy. So how exactly are they adhering to traditional Catholicism by adhering to the New Church?
-
Archbishop Lefebvre had permission to consecrate one bishop and instead he consecrated four. So, after years of trying to have an 'experiment with Tradition', Pope Saint John Paul II the Great instead excommunicated +Lefebvre and his four bishops. Almost instantaneously, he then introduced/allowed the formation of the FSSP from among the former SSPX clergy who thought +Lefebvre had gone too far.
The reason for its existence is/was to pull adherents away from the SSPX (like establishing parishes everywhere the SSPX is set up) and the archbishop said to stay away from them (I don't have that quote handy but maybe someone here could help out). Though there are many pious laymen and well-intentioned priests in the FSSP, the organization itself wasn't/isn't about Doctrine but about the Latin Mass and was off track from the beginning.
My vote is No.
I do believe there are more fssp/icksp priests than we think who reject the new mass and vatican 2 but believe they should fight from the inside as they see it. Or maybe this is just wishful thinking on my part. I know of some who hold the novus ordo as valid and limit but deficient and shouldn't exist. They also believe vatican 2 isn't infallible so they tend to ignore it. I watched a video where Fr. Ripperger said vatican 2 is not infallible and there are errors in it. He mentioned religious liberty as an example. Regardless of all this, a big problem is that they're tongue tied. My icksp priests speaks out about nothing. It's frustrating.
-
I do believe there are more fssp/icksp priests than we think who reject the new mass and vatican 2 but believe they should fight from the inside as they see it.
Sure, but based on the near 50/50 split of 'for or against', it seems most people have no clue as to why the Fraternity was allowed to exist. It's raison d'etre is to be a wedge in 'tradition'. John Paul II the Great established the FSSP right after excommunicating +Lefebvre and his bishops.
-
So, the fact that we have as many people saying Yes as No, that's a very sad commentary on how little people actually understand the crisis ... and on a Traditional Catholic forum no less. To vote that way, one has to be a "smells and bells traditionalist" and I didn't know we had that many here.
-
I know this isn't the point, but the idea of a traditional Catholic movement is a purely political idea. Movements do things and go places. Traditionalists should, by definition, resist 'movement.' I do not regard myself as part of any traditionalist movement, but I DEFINITELY would regard the indult as part of a traditional Catholic movement. They are highly political and constantly attempting to 'change the Church.'
.
Indult types are not only PART of the traditional movement, I'd say they ARE the traditional movement. The rest of us take a traditionalist POSITION, which is different.
Sorry Mith, I must strongly disagree with you here. The indult types generally believe the NO is valid and grudgingly acceptable, just not preferable. This to me is part of a defining attribute of the term Traditionalist. To further my case, most indulterers believe that JPII was a stalwart of tradition, especially in the age of Bergoglio. Most have no problem with the changes in the sacraments or the validity of the NO “holy” orders. Most venerate all the NO “saints”.
-
I didn't know we had that many here.
I'm right there with you. Let's just say I'm extremely surprised (extremely surprised) that there's a 50/50 response to this on a traditional/SSPX based forum.
-
How many priests in the "indult" groups are even ordained in the Old Rite by bishops consecrated in the Old Rite?
-
How many priests in the "indult" groups are even ordained in the Old Rite by bishops consecrated in the Old Rite?
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/l2JdYkTPVG9gRbvhK/giphy.webp?cid=6c09b9524e77c2b273afc65f635310dd5859d4583ef5e768&rid=giphy.webp&ct=g)
-
The Jorge-anathematized indult was bound to Ratzinger's Missal of 2008 including the @#$%! Novus Ordo calendar.
Since when is a 14-year-old rite "traditional"?
-
They accept the counter Church and its teachings as legitimate, placing them outside the realm of Catholic tradition, orthodoxy, in the Novus Ordo modernist heterodoxy. So how exactly are they adhering to traditional Catholicism by adhering to the New Church?
Correct me if I am wrong but aren’t Council Docuмents really meant for the consumption of the bishops and priests of the Church more so than the laity? I feel like many Catholics are legitimately not knowledgeable about the heresies in Vatican II docuмents and therefore have made no investigation into why this is so, nor the implications. People are busy raising their families and many may not do a great deal of reading; it doesn’t mean they are lazy, malicious or stupid, but not being a towering intellect is not a sin. Maybe some of these people weren’t pleased with the abuses and errors and heresy that they saw in their New Order church, and somehow, not sure how these Indult Masses are generally found, but they found it and they didn’t see these abuses and errors so they just go to Mass there now. Simple as that. When I was in the New Order, I saw many abuses and errors and I often left church going, -Man, I’m pretty sure that was heresy or sacrilege,- but I legitimately believed that my priests were just bad priests. It never even occurred to me that it was anything more than that until Jorge burst on the scene. I just don’t see how a Catholic who believes what the Church has always taught is not in the traditional Catholic movement but as I’ve said before, I don’t care about the traditional Catholic movement; they’d be Catholic even if they are deprived of the Sacraments through the malice of evil men. What is this “movement” supposed to mean anyway? Movement to do what?
-
The Jorge-anathematized indult was bound to Ratzinger's Missal of 2008 including the @#$%! Novus Ordo calendar.
Since when is a 14-year-old rite "traditional"?
Not quite understanding what you mean here, sorry. Every indult/Ecclesia Dei/Summorum pontificuм Mass I've ever heard of, uses the 1962 missal and the calendar that goes with it. The "-gesima" Sundays prior to Lent, Ember Days, traditional solemnities on their proper dates, they're all there.
-
Correct me if I am wrong but aren’t Council Docuмents really meant for the consumption of the bishops and priests of the Church more so than the laity? I feel like many Catholics are legitimately not knowledgeable about the heresies in Vatican II docuмents and therefore have made no investigation into why this is so, nor the implications. People are busy raising their families and many may not do a great deal of reading; it doesn’t mean they are lazy, malicious or stupid, but not being a towering intellect is not a sin. Maybe some of these people weren’t pleased with the abuses and errors and heresy that they saw in their New Order church, and somehow, not sure how these Indult Masses are generally found, but they found it and they didn’t see these abuses and errors so they just go to Mass there now. Simple as that. When I was in the New Order, I saw many abuses and errors and I often left church going, -Man, I’m pretty sure that was heresy or sacrilege,- but I legitimately believed that my priests were just bad priests. It never even occurred to me that it was anything more than that until Jorge burst on the scene. I just don’t see how a Catholic who believes what the Church has always taught is not in the traditional Catholic movement but as I’ve said before, I don’t care about the traditional Catholic movement; they’d be Catholic even if they are deprived of the Sacraments through the malice of evil men. What is this “movement” supposed to mean anyway? Movement to do what?
Yes, perhaps this needs to be defined somehow with specific characteristics. What was the OP thinking when he asked it. The poll results might be a reflection of not enough info.
-
I do believe there are more fssp/icksp priests than we think who reject the new mass and vatican 2 but believe they should fight from the inside as they see it. Or maybe this is just wishful thinking on my part. I know of some who hold the novus ordo as valid and limit but deficient and shouldn't exist. They also believe vatican 2 isn't infallible so they tend to ignore it. I watched a video where Fr. Ripperger said vatican 2 is not infallible and there are errors in it. He mentioned religious liberty as an example. Regardless of all this, a big problem is that they're tongue tied. My icksp priests speaks out about nothing. It's frustrating.
So, I ask again: what are they doing to change the Church [from the inside]? If they are "tongue tied" [and we know that the indult groups are required to remain silent on Vatican II] how are they effecting change?
-
Archbishop Lefebvre had permission to consecrate one bishop and instead he consecrated four. So, after years of trying to have an 'experiment with Tradition', Pope Saint John Paul II the Great instead excommunicated +Lefebvre and his four bishops. Almost instantaneously, he then introduced/allowed the formation of the FSSP from among the former SSPX clergy who thought +Lefebvre had gone too far.
The reason for its existence is/was to pull adherents away from the SSPX (like establishing parishes everywhere the SSPX is set up) and the archbishop said to stay away from them (I don't have that quote handy but maybe someone here could help out). Though there are many pious laymen and well-intentioned priests in the FSSP, the organization itself wasn't/isn't about Doctrine but about the Latin Mass and was off track from the beginning.
My vote is No.
This is pretty much the way it is. Although he did not have permission, rather he was forbidden to consecrate any, not even one. He decided to go ahead with the consecrations once he was convinced that they would never give his SSPX a bishop, let alone bishops to insure future valid ordinations after he died.
It was the very next day that the FSSP was born, using some SSPX seminarians and I think a few SSPX priests also went along. The FSSP still do not have even one bishop to call their own. In those days the belief was that they would "make changes from within" and we see how that worked out.
Here is a sermon about the crooks and the consecrations, given by Fr. Wathen a day or two after the consecrations in 1988.
https://youtu.be/Y7ScfngHfBA
-
Sure, but based on the near 50/50 split of 'for or against', it seems most people have no clue as to why the Fraternity was allowed to exist. It's raison d'etre is to be a wedge in 'tradition'. John Paul II the Great established the FSSP right after excommunicating +Lefebvre and his bishops.
Hopefully that is sarcasm, because "The Great" or a "Saint" he is not.
-
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/l2JdYkTPVG9gRbvhK/giphy.webp?cid=6c09b9524e77c2b273afc65f635310dd5859d4583ef5e768&rid=giphy.webp&ct=g)
There are a few edge cases, refugees from SSPX, or someone from the old days ordained by someone like Cardinal Arinze or one of the few others that occasionally did these ... but, apart from those, yes. I believe Cardinal Palazzini (valid) did one or two of them. Also, there's the group tied to to +Rifan down in Brazil. Although he was consecrated by Hoyos (New Rite), +Rangel was a co-consecrator, and he had been consecrated by the +Lefebvre bishops.
-
There are a few edge cases, refugees from SSPX, or someone from the old days ordained by someone like Cardinal Arinze or one of the few others that occasionally did these ... but, apart from those, yes.
Right. So, the FSSP and ICKSP are in line with the Novus Ordo with respect to ordaining their "priests". Why does it matter if they hold onto the TLM when it is at best doubtful that the priest offering it is even a priest?
It seems to me that having traditional ordinations and consecrations should be the minimum litmus test.
-
Right. So, the FSSP and ICKSP are in line with the Novus Ordo with respect to ordaining their "priests". Why does it matter if they hold onto the TLM when it is at best doubtful that the priest offering it is even a priest?
It seems to me that having traditional ordinations and consecrations should be the minimum litmus test.
Yes, although there are some who claim (whether they really believe it or not is a different matter entirely) that the New Rite is valid.
-
Hopefully that is sarcasm, because "The Great" or a "Saint" he is not.
Yes, that was sarcasm. But I should've included the full title anyway - Pope Saint John Paul II the Great. Now that's a title!
-
Not quite understanding what you mean here, sorry. Every indult/Ecclesia Dei/Summorum pontificuм Mass I've ever heard of, uses the 1962 missal and the calendar that goes with it. The "-gesima" Sundays prior to Lent, Ember Days, traditional solemnities on their proper dates, they're all there.
Holy Week prayer for the conversion of the Jews was changed to a heretical form, new Missal, not traditional. It may vary from location to location (as usually the case with the non-universal "church"), but I have seen ICK use the new calenadr and even add the new readings, not traditional.
-
Holy Week prayer for the conversion of the Jєωs was changed to a heretical form, new Missal, not traditional. It may vary from location to location (as usually the case with the non-universal "church"), but I have seen ICK use the new calenadr and even add the new readings, not traditional.
Sspx, too.
Recently heard an sspx priest preach on the benefits of the divine mercy chaplet. :facepalm:
Wish I had an alternative near me.
-
Hopefully the explanation for the many "yes" answers is that people haven't thought it through.
The indult is controlled opposition. Every powerful strategist sooner or later creates a false opposition group to disperse the enemy. What's interesting is that most of the time you don't know for sure if someone is on (((their))) leash but in this case you know for sure that JP2 the apostate founded them. How much more obvious can it get?
-
Hopefully the explanation for the many "yes" answers is that people haven't thought it through.
Possibly. By accident in another poll, I found out that you can "remove" your vote and re-vote. So, if there are some who wish to change their vote, they could do so.
-
Hopefully the explanation for the many "yes" answers is that people haven't thought it through.
The indult is controlled opposition. Every powerful strategist sooner or later creates a false opposition group to disperse the enemy. What's interesting is that most of the time you don't know for sure if someone is on (((their))) leash but in this case you know for sure that JP2 the apostate founded them. How much more obvious can it get?
I can not wrap my head around how you can suspect the indult of being controlled opposition but not SSPX. I suspect SSPX was set up almost like a release valve, so that the really well catechized and truly devout (maybe also a little less submissive to proper authority) could have somewhere to just attend Mass without necessarily considering the logical conclusion that no Pope could have done this to the Church and the Mass, as it would necessitate he propagate heresy, which the Holy Ghost impeccably guards against, and the Church must be sede vacante.
-
So, I ask again: what are they doing to change the Church [from the inside]? If they are "tongue tied" [and we know that the indult groups are required to remain silent on Vatican II] how are they effecting change?
I agree with some of what you're saying. While I attend icksp because of locality I support the sspx in principle a lot more than icksp or fssp. However I do not think icksp or fssp do no good whatsoever for the cause of tradition. I believe they at least bring people out of attending the novus ordo mass and for the most part teach actual catholocism, at least much more so than your average novus ordo. Many people attending the novus ordo are afraid to attend sspx or other chapels because they fear its schismatic. But they will attend icksp or fssp. Then after some time, the may be a lot more likely to attend the sspx or another chapel. I guess I hold to the theory of the sspx and other trad chapels and groups fighting from the outside of the official structures while the indult groups fight on the inside in a different way. But now that Francis and company are doing everything they can to get rid of the tlm, this strategy may no longer work. Again this is just mh opinion. I am beyond confused these days. I've actually been considering switching to an eastern rite.
-
I guess I hold to the theory of the sspx and other trad chapels and groups fighting from the outside of the official structures while the indult groups fight on the inside in a different way.
I'm sorry, how can an army that is lead by the enemy commander be fighting the enemy?
The only way is to claim that the commander has no authority but is still somehow their commander as the SSPX does but the FSSP actually acknowledges Francis as their legitimate superior and would even dissolve at his command I suspect. Not that he would do that to such a valuable asset to his side.
-
I can not wrap my head around how you can suspect the indult of being controlled opposition but not SSPX. I suspect SSPX was set up almost like a release valve, so that the really well catechized and truly devout (maybe also a little less submissive to proper authority) could have somewhere to just attend Mass without necessarily considering the logical conclusion that no Pope could have done this to the Church and the Mass, as it would necessitate he propagate heresy, which the Holy Ghost impeccably guards against, and the Church must be sede vacante.
It is a false opposition as in not being the true position. However, it was founded by +Lefebvre and he was sincere and rejected the heresies of Vatican II and stuck to tradition. I honestly think +Lefebvre was called by God to found the society but that doesn't mean everything he did was right.
You cannot claim the FSSP and SSPX are on the same level of unorthodox and you can't call it controlled opposition because it isn't controlled. You can call it false, schismatic or whatever but it is not controlled. Yet.
-
I am beyond confused these days. I've actually been considering switching to an eastern rite.
Not getting too wrapped up in all the bs will help unconfuse you.
If you know you have a valid trad priest, then Deo Gratias because you have more than many, and with that you have enough to save your soul. And with that *if* you do not save your soul, you will have only yourself to blame.
If you don't know, then find out. Sometimes that means asking the priest himself. But avoid all the extraneous crap and get right to the business at hand, saving your soul.
-
Not getting too wrapped up in all the bs will help unconfuse you.
If you know you have a valid trad priest, then Deo Gratias because you have more than many, and with that you have enough to save your soul. And with that *if* you do not save your soul, you will have only yourself to blame.
If you don't know, then find out. Sometimes that means asking the priest himself. But avoid all the extraneous crap and get right to the business at hand, saving your soul.
It's ICKSP so 99% not a real priest. He should still ask to make sure though.
If he's not valid God will still provide you enough graces through the rosary, perfect contrition, etc. but going to confession is still a must.
-
It is a false opposition as in not being the true position. However, it was founded by +Lefebvre and he was sincere and rejected the heresies of Vatican II and stuck to tradition. I honestly think +Lefebvre was called by God to found the society but that doesn't mean everything he did was right.
You cannot claim the FSSP and SSPX are on the same level of unorthodox and you can't call it controlled opposition because it isn't controlled. You can call it false, schismatic or whatever but it is not controlled. Yet.
In another comment you mention, “The only way is to claim that the commander has no authority but is still somehow their commander as the SSPX does but the FSSP actually acknowledges Francis as their legitimate superior and would even dissolve at his command I suspect.” I agree that both have a false position however, it is a more Catholic position to dissolve at the command of the Pope if you do believe he is the Pope and I’m sure many religious orders have done just that. Not SSPX because they deny the authority of the Pope, which is Church dogma. By the nature of controlled opposition you can not always know it is controlled so I don’t know why you dismiss my suspicion so confidently but hold your own. This is not a good time for cults of personality; we lost our Pope and +Lefebvre did not want to acknowledge that? He could have been wrong but he also could have been controlled opposition.
-
In another comment you mention, “The only way is to claim that the commander has no authority but is still somehow their commander as the SSPX does but the FSSP actually acknowledges Francis as their legitimate superior and would even dissolve at his command I suspect.” I agree that both have a false position however, it is a more Catholic position to dissolve at the command of the Pope if you do believe he is the Pope and I’m sure many religious orders have done just that. Not SSPX because they deny the authority of the Pope, which is Church dogma.
I agree. But it is more Catholic to resist heresy than to submit to it. They both have a fundamental problem.
By the nature of controlled opposition you can not always know it is controlled so I don’t know why you dismiss my suspicion so confidently but hold your own. This is not a good time for cults of personality; we lost our Pope and +Lefebvre did not want to acknowledge that? He could have been wrong but he also could have been controlled opposition.
I'm quite convinced +Lefebvre wasn't controlled by the modernists because that much is patently obvious and he even considered sedevacantism around the time of Assisi. If you watch the docuмentary put out by the SSPX you should be convinced at least about his sincerity.
I think +Lefebvre was more holy, humble and sincere than any traditional cleric I know of today despite his grave error which at the time was more excusable and was perhaps caused by a false understanding of humility.
I don't know if he is in Heaven but if he isn't I'd say I don't have much of a chance.
-
It's ICKSP so 99% not a real priest. He should still ask to make sure though.
If he's not valid God will still provide you enough graces through the rosary, perfect contrition, etc. but going to confession is still a must.
I personally believe new orders are valid but I'd be a liar if I said I have absolutely no doubt. I've been attending a byzantine parish lately and am considering going there full time. The priest there was not ordained novus ordo. He's a byzantine priest from somewhere around Ukraine or something. I remember looking into it awhile back.
-
I personally believe new orders are valid but I'd be a liar if I said I have absolutely no doubt. I've been attending a byzantine parish lately and am considering going there full time. The priest there was not ordained novus ordo. He's a byzantine priest from somewhere around Ukraine or something. I remember looking into it awhile back.
Just do it. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The whole point is that doubtful orders are to be considered as invalid for even if the chance is small they are invalid the risk involved is enormous.
The risk/benefit ratio is wildly in favour of attending the byzantine rite.
-
Just do it. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The whole point is that doubtful orders are to be considered as invalid for even if the chance is small they are invalid the risk involved is enormous.
The risk/benefit ratio is wildly in favour of attending the byzantine rite.
Agreed. There's no doubt about the validity of the Eastern Rite Sacraments ... apart from an occasional straggler who switches over from the Novus Ordo (and then of course they don't conditionally re-ordain them). You don't see that often with the Ukrainians. Even the Maronite Sacraments are certainly valid, although they've definitely modernized the externals of their Liturgy (more vernacular, lay readers, even altar girls, turning the altar around, pushing tabernacle off to the side ... although the basic forms haven't changed, and they even say the words of Consecration in Aramaic). Dimond Brothers had no issues receiving the Sacraments from Eastern Rite priests.
Now, you may encounter slightly bit more Modernism in the Catholic Eastern Rites (moreso among Maronite and Byantine, less so among Ukrainian), as conservative Novus Ordites tends to flock to the Indult/Motu ... but that's the tradeoff for valid Sacraments. Also, there's no question of Communion in the Hand because the Byzatine families of Rites distribute Holy Communion from a spoon that contains Both Species while the Maronites use intincture (dipping the Bread Species into the Wine Species) ... also rendering Communion in the Hand impossible.
-
I think +Lefebvre was more holy, humble and sincere than any traditional cleric I know of today despite his grave error which at the time was more excusable and was perhaps caused by a false understanding of humility.
Indeed, why would you stand up a "controlled opposition" to keep alive a movement that would have pretty much died out by now without him? Had there been no +Lefebvre, no SSPX, we'd be witnessing the dying off of the older pre-Vatican II Traditional priests (Father Leo Carley near me is one of the last, in his late 80s now but still going strong) ... apart from PERHAPS the +Thuc line, but God knows whether +Thuc would have had the courage to do what he did had Archbishop Lefebvre not set something of a precedent in resisting the Modernists.
But ... I actually don't believe he committed any kind of "grave error" on the Pope question. He made it clear that he believed that this degree of destruction was not possible given the guidance of the Holy Spirit over the Church and the Papacy, stated repeatedly that the Conciliar Church does not have the Marks of the Catholic Church. He simply felt that he lacked the certainty of faith (and was not incorrect) to judge the Holy See vacant ... barring some other possible explanation. So he merely prescinded from the ultimate conclusion due to lack of absolute certainty. His mistake was to not articulate this more emphatically, with the result tha many of his followers amplified his position into the dogmatic R&R we see today, something which in the final analysis as closely akin to Old Catholicism.
I believe that +Lefebvres serious error was on the theological foundation for all the Vatican II errors, EENS dogma and the resulting ecclesiology. His articulation of EENS leads inexorably to the V2 ecclesiology as its logical conclusion, and all the V2 errors flow from that ecclesiology. So he misfired on that, and that goes to show how deep the rot had gotten on that particular issue.
-
Indeed, why would you stand up a "controlled opposition" to keep alive a movement that would have pretty much died out by now without him? Had there been no +Lefebvre, no SSPX, we'd be witnessing the dying off of the older pre-Vatican II Traditional priests (Father Leo Carley near me is one of the last, in his late 80s now but still going strong) ... apart from PERHAPS the +Thuc line, but God knows whether +Thuc would have had the courage to do what he did had Archbishop Lefebvre not set something of a precedent in resisting the Modernists.
But ... I actually don't believe he committed any kind of "grave error" on the Pope question. He made it clear that he believed that this degree of destruction was not possible given the guidance of the Holy Spirit over the Church and the Papacy, stated repeatedly that the Conciliar Church does not have the Marks of the Catholic Church. He simply felt that he lacked the certainty of faith (and was not incorrect) to judge the Holy See vacant ... barring some other possible explanation. So he merely prescinded from the ultimate conclusion due to lack of absolute certainty. His mistake was to not articulate this more emphatically, with the result tha many of his followers amplified his position into the dogmatic R&R we see today, something which in the final analysis as closely akin to Old Catholicism.
I believe that +Lefebvres serious error was on the theological foundation for all the Vatican II errors, EENS dogma and the resulting ecclesiology. His articulation of EENS leads inexorably to the V2 ecclesiology as its logical conclusion, and all the V2 errors flow from that ecclesiology. So he misfired on that, and that goes to show how deep the rot had gotten on that particular issue.
Ladislaus, I was wondering if you’d mind if I sent you information about a Byzantine Catholic priest near me? I respect your opinion and would like to know your thoughts. I just don’t know very much about the eastern rites, Catholic or Orthodox.
-
Agreed. There's no doubt about the validity of the Eastern Rite Sacraments ... apart from an occasional straggler who switches over from the Novus Ordo (and then of course they don't conditionally re-ordain them). You don't see that often with the Ukrainians. Even the Maronite Sacraments are certainly valid, although they've definitely modernized the externals of their Liturgy (more vernacular, lay readers, even altar girls, turning the altar around, pushing tabernacle off to the side ... although the basic forms haven't changed, and they even say the words of Consecration in Aramaic). Dimond Brothers had no issues receiving the Sacraments from Eastern Rite priests.
Now, you may encounter slightly bit more Modernism in the Catholic Eastern Rites (moreso among Maronite and Byantine, less so among Ukrainian), as conservative Novus Ordites tends to flock to the Indult/Motu ... but that's the tradeoff for valid Sacraments. Also, there's no question of Communion in the Hand because the Byzatine families of Rites distribute Holy Communion from a spoon that contains Both Species while the Maronites use intincture (dipping the Bread Species into the Wine Species) ... also rendering Communion in the Hand impossible.
I meant to quote this one not the one where you are trying to destroy my controlled opposition suspicion, lol. You guys are probably correct about +Lefebvre and I hope you are. And ServusInutilisDomini, you also made a good point that one can know with confidence that Wojtyla was controlled opposition and it is likely that +Lefebvre was honestly mistaken.
-
Agreed. There's no doubt about the validity of the Eastern Rite Sacraments ... apart from an occasional straggler who switches over from the Novus Ordo (and then of course they don't conditionally re-ordain them). You don't see that often with the Ukrainians. Even the Maronite Sacraments are certainly valid, although they've definitely modernized the externals of their Liturgy (more vernacular, lay readers, even altar girls, turning the altar around, pushing tabernacle off to the side ... although the basic forms haven't changed, and they even say the words of Consecration in Aramaic). Dimond Brothers had no issues receiving the Sacraments from Eastern Rite priests.
Now, you may encounter slightly bit more Modernism in the Catholic Eastern Rites (moreso among Maronite and Byantine, less so among Ukrainian), as conservative Novus Ordites tends to flock to the Indult/Motu ... but that's the tradeoff for valid Sacraments. Also, there's no question of Communion in the Hand because the Byzatine families of Rites distribute Holy Communion from a spoon that contains Both Species while the Maronites use intincture (dipping the Bread Species into the Wine Species) ... also rendering Communion in the Hand impossible.
Do Eastern Catholic priests speak out against Vatican II/Rome/Bergoglio? Or do they consider the Western church as if it were a separate church?
-
Just do it. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The whole point is that doubtful orders are to be considered as invalid for even if the chance is small they are invalid the risk involved is enormous.
The risk/benefit ratio is wildly in favour of attending the byzantine rite.
Not necessarily.
The byzantine priest near me is a NO diocesan priest trained to say the byzantine mass. Seven days a week he says the NO mass and on Sunday ALSO says the byzantine mass.
Doubtful orders are considered doubtful.
When in doubt, do without.
-
NO. Indult comes under the authority of the dioceses bishop. Their money, in the collection plate supports dioceses. Dioceses has taken on Catholic Charities for well over 60 years. Serving the federal agenda by grants. Serving abortion, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and you name it they do it. Lifesitenews has brought this to our attention by Michael Hichborn, Lepanto Institute.
-
I just don’t know very much about the eastern rites, Catholic or Orthodox.
I was taught Roman Catholics are not meant to understand Eastern rites. It would be difficult to attend and know if they miss or change something.
-
The Indult mass is a plot to steer Catholics away from the true Divine Sacrifice and keep them in Newchurch.
-
Do Eastern Catholic priests speak out against Vatican II/Rome/Bergoglio? Or do they consider the Western church as if it were a separate church?
The byzantine priest here in Columbus ohio does not speak out against these things, though he wrote in a magazine article that the German bishops are heretics. I'm not super familiar with him yet but he seems like he's neo conservative. Certainly not a liberal modernist but no traditionalist that's for sure. Everything liturgically is done by the books from what I know. No nonsense there. However his sermons are generally brief and pretty generic but nothing heretical. I'd prefer to be in the company of a much more traditional congregation but they're nowhere as bad as those you come across at your average novus ordo. People genuinely seem to be there for religion not a social club but the people r certainly more devout at the indult.
-
Spoke to a friend yesterday who attends the SSPX chapel in Washington. They now only have one Sunday Mass because many have left. The claim is people have moved, true, but it's also due to the fact that the FSSP was finally able to buy a chapel very close by (per the usual) and they now have four Sunday services.
The FSSP was established to shut down the work of +Lefebvre but the laity have no idea.
-
I voted "no," because their very existence is predicated upon their principled acceptance of the modernist doctrines of Vatican II and the post-conciliar deformations.
From Ecclesia Dei Adflicta: ''
"To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary [but not dogmatic or doctrinal!] forms of the Latin tradition, I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their aspirations."
and again:
"...priests, seminarians, religious communities, or individuals until now linked in various ways to the Fraternity founded by Archbishop Lefebvre, who may wish to remain united to the Successor of Peter in the Catholic Church while preserving their spiritual and liturgical [but not dogmatic or dontrinal!] traditions..."
And this same motu proprio reaffirming the provisions of the 1984 letter, which containd this condition:
"Since, however, the same problem continues, the Supreme Pontiff, in a desire to meet the wishes of these groups grants to diocesan bishops the possibility of using an indult whereby priests and faithful, who shall be expressly indicated in the letter of request to be presented to their own bishop, may be able to celebrate Mass by using the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition, but under the following conditions:
a) That it be made publicly clear beyond all ambiguity that such priests and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call in question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970."
Therefore, if one agrees to forego traditional doctrine, and has no principled objection to the new Mass, in what way would this person be considered "traditional," except in the most superficial sense?
-
From Ecclesia Dei Adflicta: ''
"To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary [but not dogmatic or doctrinal!] forms of the Latin tradition, I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their aspirations."
I created a poll on 'who has read the biography of +Lefebvre' and pretty much no one responded. 'Nuff said. Just saying...
-
I created a poll on 'who has read the biography of +Lefebvre' and pretty much no one responded. 'Nuff said. Just saying...
Hopefully that doesn't mean nobody read it. It was a very good history. I read it, and continue to refer back to it frequently.
-
It doesn't necessary mean no one has read it, but I did find it surprising no one was interested in responding. I took that as a sign of apathy. I'm no genius but results are results.