Author Topic: SSPX and Indult in the Church (Read 2416 times)

MichaelSolimanto · « **on:** November 02, 2007, 12:16:56 AM »

I was thinking about this, and I can see the benefits of having both the SSPX and diocesan approved traditional chapels. Both serve God, one more perfectly, the other as a half-way house and sometimes even very good depending on the priest.

The SSPX is the anchor of the ship. It has sunk it's anchor into Catholic tradition and it roots the ship. The diocesan approved TLMs is really up to the heroism of the priest to go the whole way down and root himself in tradition and be courageous in the face of adversity and yes, even heroic fidelity to what he will face.

Even the laity though have different roles I believe. In the SSPX there is more of a happiness of having the faith and sharing the faith God gave them. Many in the indult are constantly at war to fight for the rights of the TLM and tradition and have wonderful work making in-roads to allow the spread of the TLM and traditional doctrines to Catholics who have never been exposed but will be interested because it's not with the "whacko" (by their own standards of being so far from tradition) SSPX priests.

For the SSPX priests they use the weapons of polemics while the faithful enjoy the fruits of their labors, in the diocesan approved TLMs most priests are non-polemic while the faith are polemic. It's a weird dichotomy.

Both have their usefulness, but we have to thank the great Archbishop Lefebvre everyday for the diocesan approved TLMs. As a side note one member of this indult parish told me how the Archbishop was so wrong for what he did, and when I said that without him you wouldn't even have this parish to worship in he was dumb-founded and realized how stupid he sounded.

I'm obviously pro-SSPX, but I think to discount the good in the diocesan approved TLMs can be near-sighted. When Bishop Fellay encouraged the growth of the indult in Phoenix he showed that he does agree with this to some extent. Does anyone care to comment on how they believe the situation is?

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #1 on:** November 02, 2007, 12:32:51 AM »

Well, there is indeed a state of necessity for there to TLMs in various areas. It depends on the situation in each diocese, of course, but as long as the TLM and Catholic faith are there offered for faithful somewhere right now, whether it be SSPX or indult, then there is still hope. The SSPX though is simply more of the one fighting as far as being marked with the false accusations of "schism" and "disobedience," whereas the indult groups have to deal with the unjust restrictions that can be placed by bishops and priests.

EDIT: Sadly though, there is more compromise involved with the indult as opposed to the stronger stance of the SSPX. The SSPX simply will not tolerate the modernist insanity right now in the Church. It would rather stand against it for the greater glory of God.

clare · « **Reply #2 on:** November 02, 2007, 04:53:46 AM »

I'm happier to attend the occasional "approved" Mass under Summorum Pontificuм than I was under Ecclesia Dei. My first choice is always the SSPX. If I can't go to an SSPX Mass, and there happens to be an "approved" Traditional Mass available, I'll go to that. If not, I won't go to the New Rite. I'll stay at home reading the missal.

I prefer "indults" said by indult society priests to those offered by diocesan priests who do it as a chore. The sermons are better, and there's no risk of abuses.

gilbertgea · « **Reply #3 on:** November 02, 2007, 08:21:55 AM »

I definitely support the position of the SSPX.

As for the Indult (in which category I include those TLMs being celebrated in the wake of the recent Motu Proprio), while I think that what they're doing is meritorious and perhaps well-intended, I'm a little hesitant to attend their Masses. There are theoretical and practical reasons for my hesitancy.

Theoretically, the priests who operate under the Indult must accept Vatican II and not question it. This presents a problem because Vatican II -- or at least its interpretation -- has led to the gross abuses in the liturgy that has, among a few other reasons, resulted in their being a traditional Catholic "movement" in the first place.

Practically, the priests who celebrate the TLM under the Indult dont always appear to know what they are doing, or they "blend" parts of the Novus Ordo in with the TLM.

Case in point. I went to an Indult site for the Feast of the Assumption this past August, in accordance with it being a Holy Day of Obligation. I did this out of a perhaps misguided sense of Charity: not in the sense of fulfilling my obligation, but in the sense of thinking that I was being perhaps "open-minded" towards the Indult.

In this case, that was a mistake.

While the Mass itself appeared to be picture-perfect, the Epistle and Gospel readings were not the ones they should've been. Turns out they were the ones that the Novus Ordo does because it is on a three-year cycle. My two sons are too young to understand the difference, but I did. I havent returned since.

I dont condemn the priests who operate under the Indult: I know they probably are trying to make the best of a bad situation. But, by focusing solely on the TLM and not on the doctrinal problems that have arisen since Vatican II -- indeed in declaring that they will not even question them -- I think they are shooting themselves in the foot by focusing more on Form rather than on Substance.

MichaelSolimanto · « **Reply #4 on:** November 02, 2007, 10:04:12 AM »

Quote from: gilbertgea

Theoretically, the priests who operate under the Indult must accept Vatican II and not question it. This presents a problem because Vatican II -- or at least its interpretation -- has led to the gross abuses in the liturgy that has, among a few other reasons, resulted in their being a traditional Catholic "movement" in the first place.

I agreed with everything up to here. I would clarify it by saying the Indult communities of Ecclesia Dei have to accept it, but I have seen diocesan priests who have personal permission come right against it in certain regards.

Quote

Practically, the priests who celebrate the TLM under the Indult dont always appear to know what they are doing, or they "blend" parts of the Novus Ordo in with the TLM.

Quote

While the Mass itself appeared to be picture-perfect, the Epistle and Gospel readings were not the ones they should've been. Turns out they were the ones that the Novus Ordo does because it is on a three-year cycle. My two sons are too young to understand the difference, but I did. I havent returned since.

There is no excuse for doing that I agree. I have never seen it, although I've heard of abuses and I've seen a lot of "insult" Masses.

Quote

I dont condemn the priests who operate under the Indult: I know they probably are trying to make the best of a bad situation. But, by focusing solely on the TLM and not on the doctrinal problems that have arisen since Vatican II -- indeed in declaring that they will not even question them -- I think they are shooting themselves in the foot by focusing more on Form rather than on Substance.

I agree with you only insofar as Ecclesia Dei community priests (with some exceptions like Fr. Ripperger who has made public comments about why one could find reason wrong with the new docuмents) are far more prone, but I have found several individual priests of a diocese who are very opposed to things against tradition including Vatican II.

My point was that the SSPX is the best out there (and I have seen only one liturgical aberration in a SSPX chapel ever) but the diocesan approved structures can help people who think the Society's juridical position is not one they feel comfortable with. The problem I'm noting as well is that several of the priests I've seen do the indult do not hold traditional values from the pulpit or in the Confessional.