Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Matthew on April 19, 2019, 10:38:55 AM
-
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, past or present, from the very beginning in 1970. 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 disagree respectfully with this and I think, Matthew, that this is the core area of disagreement between the Society and the Resistance. So let's have a brief discussion on it, though the sedevacantist issue is irrelevant to the SSPX-Resistance dispute.
1. The First Principle is the Sanctification and Salvation of Souls. This is why the Church Herself exists. I love the Firefighter Analogy given by His Excellency Bishop Fellay to explain what should be the principle of the traditional apostolate vis-a-vis relations to Rome:
"How do we understand this gesture? Allow me to make use of an image. When a fire is raging, everyone understands that those who have the means to do so must endeavor to put it out, especially if there is a shortage of firefighters ... As a result of the Pope’s act, during the Holy Year, we will have ordinary jurisdiction. In the image I mentioned, this has the effect of giving us the official insignia of firefighters, whereas such a status was [unjustly] denied us for decades." https://damselofthefaith.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/ordinary-jurisdiction-for-the-year-of-mercy-bishop-fellay-says/ (https://damselofthefaith.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/ordinary-jurisdiction-for-the-year-of-mercy-bishop-fellay-says/)
Who can reasonably dispute the applicability of this analogy to the situation of the crisis in the Church? Suppose somebody was in a burning building, Matthew. Would even we not do all that was possible to save him? Suppose a professional firefighter had been unjustly fired and his uniform had been wrongly confiscated. If he saw a fire and souls in danger of perishing, absolutely he has the right and the duty to do all that is necessary for them to be delivered from the fire, and it is commendable and praiseworthy for him to do it. But if at a later time, if the nation or state recognize it was wrong to persecute such firefighters, why should they then refuse the insignia, as Bishop Fellay says?
That is the equivalent to what is being disputed here; one could add the "firefighters" here have a right to be part of the visible hierarchy of the only Church.
2. And therefore the Second Principle could be: If the Pope wants to grant the Bishops and Priests of the Society Ordinary Jurisdiction and Habitual Authority over the Faithful who are their Subjects, then this is the correction of an injustice; something good and not evil.
As Fr. Laisney argued on the behalf of the Society, that with a wrong understanding, "One no longer sees that those who hold office in the Church have received the authority that Our Lord Jesus Christ has given to His Church, and thus have received a good thing—indeed what Our Lord Jesus Christ has established is evidently excellent—the abuses of that authority do not take away from the goodness of that authority in itself, of that hierarchical order; and thus if the pope wants to regularize the place of the Society of St. Pius X within that order, he wants something good (order is good) ... https://sspx.org/en/various-churches-fr-laisney-rebuttal (https://sspx.org/en/various-churches-fr-laisney-rebuttal)
3. The Traditional Sacramental rites, imho, give much Greater Glory to God, obtain far Greater Graces for the Church and the world and have perfect "integrity". As we know, theology distinguishes integrity and essence of the rite. A study of the new rites of episcopal consecration and priestly ordination in particular makes clear that, after infiltration by Freemasons and through the machinations of Bugnini et al, integrity has been very badly wounded in the new rites generally, from Baptism to Holy Mass. The rite remains valid, but validity is not enough; with wide use of the new inferior rites, there is a massive loss of graces in the world.
Since we each individually have the obligation to give the greatest possible glory to God in our short lives on this earth, and since we will need the necessary graces of the sacraments in the highest possible measure, we have the right and duty to preserve Tradition. But we should do it in the way that one would preserve a Priceless Treasure when an indefectible Ark was being partly flooded; namely, first, we should preserve the Treasure itself, so that first it is not drowned in the flood, by God's Grace. Second, we should see to it that that Treasure is more widely restored in the Ark, so that all those it may be kept afloat and saved in the end.
No doubt supplied Jurisdiction supplies for confessions and marriages, Rome itself has admitted this. Supplied Jurisdiction, as authors on the subject describe for us, is a delegatio a iure, a delegation operative by the law itself, that comes from the Church. Ordinary Jurisdiction, as we know, is habitual authority, a relation in which subjects are permanently under their superiors.
For an imperfect analogy: Suppose a parent willed to adopt a child, and the government wrongly prevented this at first; then, the parent should continue to love the child and desire to adopt it, but would not actually stand in permanent authority over the child until adoption was complete. In a roughly similar way, the Apostolate will go on, but full normalization need not be rejected, imo.
So, if the Pope is ready to grant Ordinary Jurisdiction to our SSPX Bishops, which they most certainly have a right to, is it not a good thing? Auxiliary Bishops have less power and rights than Bishops who are Ordinaries strictly so called. Is it not right that our Bishops should have Habitual Authority over us and full power to command us? Even Natural Authority is Good. Divinely established Authority is Excellent, Unique and Necessary. Therefore, Traditional Catholic Bishops have a right to that Divine habitual Authority.
And yet, by divine law, and the Pope's Universal Primacy of Jurisdiction defined at Vatican I, only he can grant Ordinary Jurisdiction. This, imho, is the basis on which the Society justifies its periodic relations with the Roman Authorities, which seems to have caused much misunderstanding among some sections of the Faithful. If I may ask, Matthew, where do you disagree with any of the above?
God bless.
-
I disagree respectfully with this and I think, Matthew, that this is the core area of disagreement between the Society and the Resistance.
"How do we understand this gesture? Allow me to make use of an image. When a fire is raging, everyone understands that those who have the means to do so must endeavor to put it out, especially if there is a shortage of firefighters ... As a result of the Pope’s act, during the Holy Year, we will have ordinary jurisdiction. In the image I mentioned, this has the effect of giving us the official insignia of firefighters, whereas such a status was [unjustly] denied us for decades."
The writer disagrees because he is not a traditionalist, he is a conservative as Matthew described.
In the analogy by Bp. Fellay, he rightly sees a fire, the fire that is the Vatican II church, the Conciliar church, however, to the pope there is no fire in the Vatican II church, there is a fire in the SSPX and the traditionalist movement. The fire is that it is opposed to the "spirit of Vatican II" which spirit he "believes" is the Holy Ghost. That spirit is what has given him the power to be placed as the "supreme pontiff", and notice that I do not capitalize that spirit.
-
Please explain which of the 3 principles were wrong then. Canon Law says, Suprema Lex Salus Animarum, the Supreme Law of the Church Herself is the Salvation, and therefore Sanctification also which precedes it, of our souls, of all souls, as far as possible. That would sum up in a word the basis of the society's apostolate, and even more, it should be the constant concern of every Christian, especially fathers of families. The salvation of their families and those entrusted to their charge first and foremost, and others next.
Pope St. Pius X commanded everyone, including His Successors, to swear the Oath against Modernism, which is dogmatic, and which also includes a Profession of the Indefectibility of the Visible Hierarchy of the Catholic Church, "I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles." http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10moath.htm
If you believe this, Last Tradhican, you will not believe the Catholic Church died, defected and disappeared, either in 1962, 1965, 1969 or even in 2013. We are in the worst crisis in the history of Christendom. But the Catholic Church has always triumphed and She will triumph over this crisis. Restoration has to come also from the Hierarchy of the Pope and the Bishops. Without that, we can do little.
+ABL in 1966: "the Successor of Peter and he alone can save the Church. Let the Holy Father surround himself with strong defenders of the Faith: let him nominate them in the important dioceses. Let him by docuмents of outstanding importance proclaim the truth, search out error without fear of contradictions, without fear of schisms, without fear of calling in question the pastoral dispositions of the Council.Let the Holy Father deign to encourage the individual bishops of their respective dioceses to correct faith and morals. It behooves every good pastor to uphold the courageous bishops, to urge them to reform their seminaries and to restore them to the study of St. Thomas; to encourage Superiors General to maintain in novitiates and communities the fundamental principles of all Christian asceticism, and above all, obedience; to encourage the development of Catholic schools, a press informed by sound doctrine, associations of Christian families; and finally, to rebuke the instigators of errors and reduce them to silence. May the Holy Ghost, to Whom our Congregation is dedicated, deign to come to the assistance of the Pastor of the Universal Church." Therefore, right from 1966, His Grace Archbishop Lefebvre acknowledged the Pope's Authority, and didn't say it's wrong to be a regularized society. From: https://fsspx.news/en/news/exchange-letters-between-cardinal-ottaviani-and-archbishop-lefebvre-1966-38507 (https://fsspx.news/en/news/exchange-letters-between-cardinal-ottaviani-and-archbishop-lefebvre-1966-38507)
Btw, as a reductio ad absurdum, if someone wants to argue Bp. Fellay saying, oh, you should never agree to regularization, even if the Pope wants to grant the "uniform" to the "firefighters", which by divine law only he can grant, then, to be consistent, apply that also to +ABL in 1970, where the Society was established as a canonically regular pious union. Even in 1990, Archbishop Lefebvre suggested the Society under his authority would be open to regularization under appropriate conditions. The main requirement were things like (1) Let the Popes and Rome swear to uphold the Oath against Modernism (2) Bring back the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. (3) Grant Sufficient Bishops to Tradition and allow the "Traditionalist Citadel" (exact words; will give the full quotation later) to continue in the Church. (4) Recognize the right of all Bishops and Priests to offer the Traditional Mass. His Excellency Bishop Fellay has already taken care of 4, and 3 too has been done. So the Society is very confident that Archbishop Lefebvre, from heaven, and if H.G. were here today, would approve normalization. (1) and (2) should be done too, I agree. I would like doctrinal discussions with Rome to be resumed, and the Society to demand more from the Roman Authorities, including the Collegial Consecration of Russia.
-
Xavier-
ABL said the FSSP (and like groups) were doing the work of the devil.
Happy to see you acknowledging the neo-SSPX abandonment of the Archbishop (while simultaneously acknowledging the fidelity of the Resistance to him) on this point.
Ps: For what it’s worth, relations with the compromised/rallied groups are not at the core of disagreement between Menzingen and the Resistance, as you allege, but the acceptance of Vatican II and the abandonment of the fight to restore Tradition (which are actually one and the same thing) by the new-SSPX.
-
1. The First Principle is the Sanctification and Salvation of Souls. This is why the Church Herself exists. I love the Firefighter Analogy given by His Excellency Bishop Fellay to explain what should be the principle of the traditional apostolate vis-a-vis relations to Rome:
Matthew was enumerating the principles which help defined Traditional Catholicism and set it apart. Obviously one could go into the entire hierarchy of Catholic principles that above these, but those are all taken for granted.
As for the the other points, you're simply listing your own personal opinion about issues that are debated among Traditional Catholics.
-
My take, and this is coming from someone who was novus ordo until 2012, so take it how you will, is that traditionalism is the paradigm of judging all things as good and bad, based on what has been handed on to us. Conservatism is the paradigm of looking to slow down the loss of traditional elements, while regularly ceding ground to liberalism, which is the belief that any element within God’s creation does not fall under His domain.
I object to the point that a true traditionalist would stay home rather than assist at an FSSP or an SSPX mass. Staying home is not part of what’s been passed on to us. The majority of our fight should be fought in prayer and penance. Some of these parishes offer the only option for some people to learn the faith and to pass it on to their children. I don’t think it’s a good idea to discourage people from attending valid masses, as long as their is no heresy or the like being spread there. This is akin to telling people they can’t attend mass where Father Jorge is commemorated, if they don’t believe him to be the pope.
My thought is that we are CATHOLICS first and foremost. The label traditionalist is useful in some cases to delineate the situation to family members, coworkers, or outsiders who don’t have any idea what is going on with the Church. However, I don’t think that it is useful among traditional Catholics, and I think that we should just call ourselves Catholic, and that Catholic is the ONLY thing that we should aspire to be.
-
Also, we attended on resistance mass in 2015 and did not return because we were bombarded with gossip as soon as we arrived, and because the sermon was only about the relationship between the SSPX and the Resistance. How can you maintain the Faith if all you preach about is Church politics? It felt wrong to be there. It’s hard to explain, but I got the feeling that God did not want us to come back. I realize that all resistance chapels are different, every community and every priest are different, but this was the experience we had. I don’t want to mischaracterize you guys. I’m just talking about one place and one time.
-
1. I object to the point that a true traditionalist would stay home rather than assist at an FSSP or an SSPX mass.
2. My thought is that we are CATHOLICS first and foremost.
1. WHAT point? Who made that point? Maybe someone came in to the thread and said this, but I certainly didn't.
2. That goes without saying. I am all for maintaining as much unity with other Catholics ("those who have the Faith") as possible. But that doesn't render a discussion about the essence of Traditional Catholicism useless.
-
Also, we attended on resistance mass in 2015 and did not return because we were bombarded with gossip as soon as we arrived, and because the sermon was only about the relationship between the SSPX and the Resistance. How can you maintain the Faith if all you preach about is Church politics? It felt wrong to be there. It’s hard to explain, but I got the feeling that God did not want us to come back. I realize that all resistance chapels are different, every community and every priest are different, but this was the experience we had. I don’t want to mischaracterize you guys. I’m just talking about one place and one time.
Who was the priest?
Did his last name rhyme with "Pfeiffer"?
-
Is one Resistance Mass really enough of a sample size? I mean, every once in a while a priest will address the crisis in the Church from the pulpit. That's always been true.
NOW ... if you had attended for a longer stretch and found out that every single sermon for two months straight was about the crisis, then I might take this as a legitimate complaint. You concluded from "on[sic] resistance mass" (presumably you meant "one") that "all [they] preach about is Church politics". Really?
Now if you got bad vibes from someone whose name rhymes with "diablo" ... that would be understandable. I could see why you'd never go back.
-
1. WHAT point? Who made that point? Maybe someone came in to the thread and said this, but I certainly didn't.
Maybe I misunderstood you. I was talking about “Leave the Conciliar Church and Novus Ordo behind completely, regardless of having a Trad option lined up for Mass.”
Of course I’m all about never attending the Novus Ordo, another for of satanic mass in my opinion. But what about people who have a trad option lined up?
-
Who was the priest?
Did his last name rhyme with "Pfeiffer"?
It more rhymed with Duke O
-
Maybe I misunderstood you. I was talking about “Leave the Conciliar Church and Novus Ordo behind completely, regardless of having a Trad option lined up for Mass.”
Of course I’m all about never attending the Novus Ordo, another for of satanic mass in my opinion. But what about people who have a trad option lined up?
You most certainly misunderstood me.
If there's one thing I can't stand, it's people who put words in my mouth and/or jump to conclusions. Why not just ask me?
If I believed that the Novus Ordo (or any other group) was invalid, believe me, I wouldn't be shy. I'd come right out and say it! I'm part Irish and as far as my personality goes, I'm even more Irish. My culture is "tell it like it is" and being down to earth. No nonsense.
Trads leave behind the Novus Ordo because it's dangerous to the Faith. That's enough reason. We Trads collectively disagree on how we got here, how to fix it, the status of the Pope, etc. but that's all beside the point. But we all agree on this: the Novus Ordo is poison for the Faith. It must be left behind by ALL who are awake and will heed good advice!
Better to stay at home alone for 10+ years than to participate in the Novus Ordo abomination. At least your Faith won't be under assault every Sunday if you stay home...
Trad options for Mass are a completely different story.
-
2. And therefore the Second Principle could be: If the Pope wants to grant the Bishops and Priests of the Society Ordinary Jurisdiction and Habitual Authority over the Faithful who are their Subjects, then this is the correction of an injustice; something good and not evil.
No it is not a "correction of injustice" unless the Pope were to admit that the SSPX always had regular jurisdiction since its founding, but was invalidly removed back in the 1970's. For example, what is need is for the Vatican Officials is to publicly admit that all previous SSPX were valid. Same with confessions and the excommunications, they authorities. Otherwise it is not a correction of injustice, but a compromise of "let's not say who was right or wrong, forget the past, let's just play nice from now on"
-
Please explain which of the 3 principles were wrong then. (I never addressed your principles, and there is no need to, without first addressing my point which you disagree with, and it is at the foundation of all your thinking. Read My point below)
If you believe this, Last Tradhican, you will not believe the Catholic Church died, defected and disappeared, either in 1962, 1965, 1969 or even in 2013. We are in the worst crisis in the history of Christendom. ... Restoration has to come also from the Hierarchy of the Pope and the Bishops. Without that, we can do little.
My point is as I wrote in my first posting:
"to the pope there is no fire in the Vatican II church, there is a fire in the SSPX and the traditionalist movement. The fire is that it is opposed to the "spirit of Vatican II" which spirit he "believes" is the Holy Ghost."
You say "We are in the worst crisis in the history of Christendom", while the pope and the hierarchy all say that we are in the springtime of the Catholic Church, that the SSPX has to change and accept the reality of the great fruits of Vatican II. And you say you want to join that church because it is the only way to change it. THAT is the foundational difference that you have to address. You are currently living in another planet.
-
1. WHAT point? Who made that point? Maybe someone came in to the thread and said this, but I certainly didn't.
2. That goes without saying. I am all for maintaining as much unity with other Catholics ("those who have the Faith") as possible. But that doesn't render a discussion about the essence of Traditional Catholicism useless.
You said this
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.
You also said the FSSP is not trad.
i'm not certain whether or not this means you'd say its better to stay home than to attend a Tridentine mass at an FSSP, assuming those were the only options. I could see how someone could read your post that way, 'cause I did at first as well, but then I reread it and I realized I'm not actually sure whether you were saying so or not.
-
Also, we attended on resistance mass in 2015 and did not return because we were bombarded with gossip as soon as we arrived, and because the sermon was only about the relationship between the SSPX and the Resistance. How can you maintain the Faith if all you preach about is Church politics? It felt wrong to be there. It’s hard to explain, but I got the feeling that God did not want us to come back. I realize that all resistance chapels are different, every community and every priest are different, but this was the experience we had. I don’t want to mischaracterize you guys. I’m just talking about one place and one time.
You should make the effort to attend Mass at one of Bishop Zendajas' chapels, you will have a much more pleasant experience.
-
Ok, I can see where the confusion comes from.
Strictly speaking, the FSSP doesn't meet the definition of Trad, since they insert the novel idea (and go against the original Trad thinking that we have the right to attend the Tridentine Mass, permission or no permission, because Quo Primum gives us permission).
Long story short, Trads have (either literally or figuratively) a copy of Quo Primum hanging on their living room wall. It is the foundation of the whole movement. Further, we believe that no one can force us to put our Faith and our souls at risk -- that we have to save our souls and continue living our Catholic lives (which includes Mass and the Sacraments) -- Crisis or no Crisis.
The FSSP introduces the novelty that we need, or would PREFER TO HAVE, permission from the Conciliar Roman authorities. Most Trads dating back to the beginning of the movement would disagree. If they go against one of the core tenets of the Trad movement, how can we call them Trad? At least strictly speaking.
The status of their Latin Masses is obviously different than the Novus Ordo. As long as you have "validly ordained" covered, and they are saying the Tridentine Mass, then you have a valid Mass. So the status of FSSP is somewhere in between a Novus Ordo and a "fully Trad" Mass -- though it's closer to the latter.
The million dollar question is: why stick with an official Trad (tm) chapel in the first place?
Well, I would answer that there is a certain desirability and comfort to have that stability, to have the same, stable position as those original Catholics who first left the Novus Ordo and left to find Tridentine lifeboats in which to ride out the Crisis. I'm sure this point could be elaborated upon: it's more "traditional" like the Faith itself, it shows that we haven't "reacted" to anything since then (for example, a carrot held out by the Conciliar Authorities), or changed/given up any principles of the Faith, etc.
If it wasn't needed by the original Trads, it isn't needed by me. Because the Faith had to exist at all times. If we really needed permission to be faithful to the Catholic Faith pre-Vatican II, then the Faith wasn't practiced perfectly anywhere from 1970 - 1983 (or Ecclesia Dei in 1988, or Summorum Pontificuм in 2006). I'm not willing to accept that.
I think it's safer, from a "sound lifeboat" or a prudence perspective, to recognize in myself 100% of what was found in the original Trad movement, and nothing more.
-
Ok, I can see where the confusion comes from.
Strictly speaking, the FSSP doesn't meet the definition of Trad, since they insert the novel idea (and go against the original Trad thinking that we have the right to attend the Tridentine Mass, permission or no permission, because Quo Primum gives us permission).
Long story short, Trads have (either literally or figuratively) a copy of Quo Primum hanging on their living room wall. It is the foundation of the whole movement. Further, we believe that no one can force us to put our Faith and our souls at risk -- that we have to save our souls and continue our Catholic life (which includes Mass and the Sacraments) -- Crisis or no Crisis.
The FSSP introduces the novelty that we need, or would PREFER TO HAVE, permission from the Conciliar Roman authorities. Most Trads dating back to the beginning of the movement would disagree. If they go against one of the core tenets of the Trad movement, how can we call them Trad?
The status of their Latin Masses is obviously different than the Novus Ordo. As long as you have "validly ordained" covered, then you have a valid Mass. So the status of FSSP is somewhere in between a Novus Ordo and a "fully Trad" Mass -- though it's closer to the latter.
Why wouldn't any non-Sedevacantist *prefer* to have permission from the Conciliar authorities, assuming they weren't obligated to compromise to get it? I guess that doesn't make sense to me.
Like even in a case like say Acts 5:29, the Apostles wouldn't listen when the civil authorities told them not to preach the gospel, but they'd certainly prefer the authorities to have sanctioned the preaching of the gospel vs banning it.
If Francis is the Pope, wouldn't it be preferable that he give his permission, even if you'd disobey if he didn't give it?
What am I missing?
-
You most certainly misunderstood me.
If there's one thing I can't stand, it's people who put words in my mouth and/or jump to conclusions. Why not just ask me?
If I believed that the Novus Ordo (or any other group) was invalid, believe me, I wouldn't be shy. I'd come right out and say it! I'm part Irish and as far as my personality goes, I'm even more Irish. My culture is "tell it like it is" and being down to earth. No nonsense.
Trads leave behind the Novus Ordo because it's dangerous to the Faith. That's enough reason. We Trads collectively disagree on how we got here, how to fix it, the status of the Pope, etc. but that's all beside the point. But we all agree on this: the Novus Ordo is poison for the Faith. It must be left behind by ALL who are awake and will heed good advice!
Better to stay at home alone for 10+ years than to participate in the Novus Ordo abomination. At least your Faith won't be under assault every Sunday if you stay home...
Trad options for Mass are a completely different story.
I certainly meant no offense or intentionally put words in your mouth. I absolutely would have asked you, had I realized that I was doing that. So sorry for misrepresenting your statement.
-
Why wouldn't any non-Sedevacantist *prefer* to have permission from the Conciliar authorities, assuming they weren't obligated to compromise to get it? I guess that doesn't make sense to me.
Like even in a case like say Acts 5:29, the Apostles wouldn't listen when the civil authorities told them not to preach the gospel, but they'd certainly prefer the authorities to have sanctioned the preaching of the gospel vs banning it.
If Francis is the Pope, wouldn't it be preferable that he give his permission, even if you'd disobey if he didn't give it?
What am I missing?
Because to get permission from the Modernist Roman authorities, there is always a compromise involved. That's what you're missing. That includes 2006 Summorum Pontificuм -- ESPECIALLY that one, which is the most widely used Indult today.
All of these compromised "we got permission from Rome. Yay!" groups have one thing in common: they accept the Novus Ordo as the "Ordinary Form" of the Mass, and the Tridentine (a.k.a. TRUE MASS) as the "Extraordinary Form".
That compromise alone allows us, even compels us, to throw the deal back in the Conciliar Authorities' faces and proceed as normal without Conciliar permission. Just look at all the compromises the SSPX has already accepted to get to where they're at -- they have all kinds of Conciliar approval already. They are a work in progress.
https://www.cathinfo.com/c.htm
-
You should make the effort to attend Mass at one of Bishop Zendajas' chapels, you will have a much more pleasant experience.
The large majority of Traditional Catholics do not have this option. For most of us, this would entail a round trip by plane including large car or van rental, meals, and overnight hotel accommodations. Throw in the entire family, and it's unaffordable.
-
The large majority of Traditional Catholics do not have this option. For most of us, this would entail a round trip by plane including large car or van rental, meals, and overnight hotel accommodations. Throw in the entire family, and it's unaffordable.
True, but if you can combine it as part of your vacation (or make it the primary purpose of a "vacation" such as attending Mass at Christmas or Easter), then it is worth the extra expense (assuming you regularly have no access to the Latin Mass by a non-compromising priests).
-
You say "We are in the worst crisis in the history of Christendom", while the pope and the hierarchy all say that we are in the springtime of the Catholic Church
Many, yes. Not all. His Excellency Bishop Athanasius Schneider is one who has called out the failures of the last 50 years recently, "The tragic conflagration of the cathedral of Notre Dame de Paris is also a propitious occasion for all members of the Church to do penance for the acts of betrayal that have been committed against Christ and His Divine teachings in the life of the Church over the past fifty years. Penance and reparation must be made, especially for the betrayal of the command of God the Father that all mankind should believe in His Divine Son, the only Savior of mankind. For God wills positively only the one and unique religion which believes that His Incarnated Son is God and the only Savior of mankind. Penance and reparation must also be made for the betrayal of Christ’s explicit command to evangelize all nations without exception, first among them the Jєωιѕн people. For it was to them that Christ first sent His Apostles, to bring them to faith in Him and to the New and Everlasting Covenant for which the Old and temporary Covenant was established. If the Shepherds of the Church refuse to do penance for the spiritual conflagration of the past fifty years, and for the betrayal of Christ’s universal command to evangelize, should we then not fear that God might send another and more shocking sign, like a devastating conflagration or earthquake that would destroy St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome? God will not indefinitely and shamelessly be mocked by so many Shepherds of the Church of our own day, through their betrayal of the Faith, their sycophantic serving of the world and their neo-pagan worship of temporal and earthly realities. To them as well are addressed these words of Christ, “I tell you, unless you repent you will all likewise perish.” (Lk 13: 5)May the fire at the cathedral of Notre Dame de Paris, however sad and deplorable it is, rekindle — especially in the Shepherds of the Church — a love and zeal for the true Catholic Faith and for the ardent evangelization of all those who do not yet believe in Christ. And may they be mindful not to marginalize and cowardly exclude the Jєωιѕн and Muslim people from this outstanding form of charity. May the fire at Notre Dame also serve as a means to inflame in the Shepherds of the Church a spirit of true repentance, so that God might grant to all the grace of a renewal in the true Faith and in true love for Christ, Our Lord, Our God and Our Savior." https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-schneider-notre-dame-fire-sign-of-spiritual-conflagration-in-the-church (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-schneider-notre-dame-fire-sign-of-spiritual-conflagration-in-the-church)
you say you want to join that church
No, I say that (1) there is only one Church, outside of which we cannot be saved, and which we must never leave. and (2) that Church is guaranteed Indefectibility and a visible Hierarchy with at least a few good Catholic Bishops. This is what Pope St. Pius has taught us. To doubt this is to doubt the Divine Promise itself, and the Word of God Who is Truth and cannot lie. You can do that if you want. I don't intend to. The fact that hardly any one listened to Our Lady and Communist and Masonic infiltration spread in the hierarchy does not mean that the Catholic Church defected and lost Her Apostolicity. What the Church needs are Bishops and Priests, and even Faithful, who in whatever measure we can, strive to imitate Saint Padre Pio, who as we know was a stigmatist who offered only the Tridentine Mass for 50 years, and foresaw what was coming: "Final lesson: Fatima - Padre Pio was even less obliging towards the prevailing social and political order, or rather, disorder (in 1966): "the confusion of ideas and the reign of thieves." He prophesied that the Communists would come to power, "by surprise, without firing a shot... It will happen overnight." This should not surprise us, since the requests of Our Lady of Fatima have not been listened to. He even told Bishop Piccinelli, that the red flag will fly over the Vatican, "but that will pass." Here again, his conclusion rejoins that of the Queen of Prophets: "But in the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph." The means by which this prophesy will come to pass, we know: by the divine power; but it must be prompted by the two great powers in man’s hands: prayer and penance. This is the lesson which our Lady wanted to remind us of at the beginning of this century: God wants to save the world by devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and there is no problem, material or spiritual, national or international, that cannot be solved by the holy rosary and our sacrifices. https://sspx.org/en/padre-pio-vatican-ii-new-mass (https://sspx.org/en/padre-pio-vatican-ii-new-mass)
Summorum Pontificuм was a good thing for Tradition, it doesn't mean it is necessarily the final word, and we're allowed to ask for something even better from Rome, which is what the SSPX has done and what it will do under Rev. Father Davide Pagliarani. Here's a 2011 Interview from the new Superior General of the SSPX that shows his solidly traditional thought and praxis even before being SG.
http://archives.sspx.org/news/2011_archive/fr_davide_pagliarani-marco_bongi_interview_7-2011/fr_davide_pagliarani-marco_bongo_interview_part2.htm
Universae Ecclesiae that followed Summorum Pontificuм in 2011, I believe, was even better. Something in future could be better still. "The little good that we can do in Rome is probably more important than the great good that we can do elsewhere.” ... I think that Bishop de Galarreta’s remark sums up perfectly the Roman spirit with which the Society wants to serve the Roman Church: to do whatever is possible so that the Church can reclaim Her Tradition, starting with Rome itself. The history of the Church teaches us that no universal, effective and lasting reform is possible unless Rome makes that reform its own and it starts from Rome ... First of all the docuмent states precisely that the restoration of the 1962 liturgy is a universal law for the Church; in the second place the Instruction clearly makes an effort to defend, primarily in a strictly juridical context, the priests who have been prevented from using the Tridentine Missal by their ordinaries. With a certain finesse it reminds the bishops that it is up to them specifically to guarantee those rights… in order to safeguard them it is possible to appeal decisions made by the ordinaries themselves. These, I think, are the most positive points, drastically summarized." Father Pagliarani then goes on to mention some critiques and what could be bettered. The opponents of the Society are hardly representing the situation correctly. Many in the mainstream Church have benefited from SP.
-
Missed the earlier responses.
No it is not a "correction of injustice" unless the Pope were to admit that the SSPX always had regular jurisdiction since its founding, but was invalidly removed back in the 1970's.
Hi, Mr. G. Thanks for your perspective. The issue here is that there is a difference between what the SSPX asks, and what Rome admits. Bishops who lived in Communist countries or in China today will have experience on negotiating with them, and know the difficulties it involves. It's not an easy task by any means, as I hope you will agree, Mr. G. His Excellency Bishop Fellay had asked 3 things from Rome. Some were granted partially. The SSPX will ask for more, as even some Cardinals and Bishops have recommended doing, if and when doctrinal discussions with Rome begin.
As Roman Catholics, we must not forget, that, in spite of everything, Rome is still our Mother Church. The Church built on St. Peter. The Church that inherits the divine Promise. The gates of hell will not prevail against Her, but we must also do our part.
Let me refer to a good Traditional Priest outside the SSPX, in the year 1967, "Your Holiness! If we do not receive a satisfactory answer from Your Holiness or at least are given an opportunity to discuss our requests and proposals with Your Holiness personally-within the next month, we shall consider our requests denied and our proposals rejected, and draw the sad and tragic conclusion that Our Mother the Church has temporarily abandoned the best ones of her children. I pray to God and to His blessed Mother whose Assumption we commemorate today -- and millions all over the world are joining me in this prayer -- that such a dark and tragic day will never come. But, if we have no other choice, we will jealously protect the small but still burning candle of our traditional Catholic Faith, and patiently carry on our spiritual "Resistance" movement without the hoped-for papal approval."http://www.latinmass-ctm.org/pub/archive.htm (http://www.latinmass-ctm.org/pub/archive.htm) This was Fr. Gommar De Pauw. Do you agree with Father, Mr. G?
personal opinion about issues that are debated among Traditional Catholics
Ok, Ladislaus, so you think this is a matter of opinion that can be debated. Then would you agree Bishop Fellay and Fr. Pagliarani have expressed legitimate Traditional Catholic opinions and acted accordingly? The Resistance claims otherwise. Here's the thing: After the abuses of authority in the 60s and 70s were corrected, and Rome admitted Bishops never had the right to forbid their Priests from offering the Tridentine Mass - and therefore the good Priests who continued to do that, without bitterness, without rebellion, but simply to serve Mother Church, were right to do so! - by Summorum Pontificuм in 2007, it was thereafter entirely unnecessary to be "suspended" in any way. "It is the present jurisprudence of the Church that, upon appeal, any suspension that an Ordinary attempts to inflict on a priest for celebrating the Old Mass against the will of the bishop is automatically nullified." https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7729 (https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7729) Therefore, the situation dramatically changes after it.
Happy to see you acknowledging the neo-SSPX abandonment of the Archbishop ...
Hi X. Not sure if you misread my post, or I was unclear in something. My apologies if so. Bishop Fellay has clearly said H.E. conscientously believes that +ABL would have accepted what the Roman authorities have proposed, based on H.G's statements.
If you accept +ABL as an Authority, please explain to me why these Two Statements should not serve as a basis even now.
Archbishop Lefebvre in 1983: "I THINK THAT, like all traditionalist Catholics, you would like now to hear how things stand; at what point relations are between the Priestly Society of St. Pius X and the Vatican in Rome. So I shall give you a rapid summary.
Why do I maintain relations with Rome? Why do I keep going to Rome? Because I think that Rome is the center of Catholicism, because I think that there cannot be any Catholic Church without Rome. Consequently, if our purpose is to find a way of setting the Church straight again, it is by turning to Rome that maybe, with the grace of God, we may perhaps manage to set the situation straight. It is not one single bishop like myself who can set the whole situation straight in the Catholic Church. That is why I strive to keep on going to Rome and to plead the cause of Tradition." Full sermon here: http://sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Conference_at_Long_Island.htm (http://sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Conference_at_Long_Island.htm)
Archbishop Lefebvre in 1990: "Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! But I do not think they are anywhere near doing so. For what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop. They did not want to. It had to be a bishop according to the profile laid down by the Holy See. "Profile". You see what that means! Impossible. They knew very well that by giving us a traditional bishop they would be setting up a Traditionalist citadel able to continue. That they did not want." From: http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/two_years_after_the_consecrations.htm (http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/two_years_after_the_consecrations.htm)
-
Missed the earlier responses.
Hi, Mr. G. Thanks for your perspective. The issue here is that there is a difference between what the SSPX asks, and what Rome admits. Bishops who lived in Communist countries or in China today will have experience on negotiating with them, and know the difficulties it involves. It's not an easy task by any means, as I hope you will agree, Mr. G. His Excellency Bishop Fellay had asked 3 things from Rome. Some were granted partially. The SSPX will ask for more, as even some Cardinals and Bishops have recommended doing, if and when doctrinal discussions with Rome begin.
As Roman Catholics, we must not forget, that, in spite of everything, Rome is still our Mother Church. The Church built on St. Peter. The Church that inherits the divine Promise. The gates of hell will not prevail against Her, but we must also do our part.
Let me refer to a good Traditional Priest outside the SSPX, in the year 1967, "Your Holiness! If we do not receive a satisfactory answer from Your Holiness or at least are given an opportunity to discuss our requests and proposals with Your Holiness personally-within the next month, we shall consider our requests denied and our proposals rejected, and draw the sad and tragic conclusion that Our Mother the Church has temporarily abandoned the best ones of her children. I pray to God and to His blessed Mother whose Assumption we commemorate today -- and millions all over the world are joining me in this prayer -- that such a dark and tragic day will never come. But, if we have no other choice, we will jealously protect the small but still burning candle of our traditional Catholic Faith, and patiently carry on our spiritual "Resistance" movement without the hoped-for papal approval."http://www.latinmass-ctm.org/pub/archive.htm (http://www.latinmass-ctm.org/pub/archive.htm) This was Fr. Gommar De Pauw. Do you agree with Father, Mr. G?
Yes I agree it is not an easy task negotiating with communist but the issue was not about negotiating, it was claiming a "correction of injustice", which is not true.
As for Fr. De Pauw statement, I do not know about the "proposals" he is referring to so I cannot answer at this time, plus his issue was not the topic of the "correction of injustice". I wil read the letter later.
-
Many, yes. Not all. His Excellency Bishop Athanasius Schneider is one
One Bishop" does not make a Church. Schneider is a new ordination rite priest ordained and consecrated by new formula bishops, he may just be a laymen like you.
You are a brainwashed young man living in a dream world (or maybe you seek to make a living from the conciliar church and have to defend it to stay in business).
-
Ok, Mr. G, forget Fr. Gommar for a minute, then. Here is just a sample of very many letters Archbishop Lefebvre sent the Pope asking for a solution, which H.G. says is the 7th letter, "May God come to your aid to restore to the Church the position and the rights which are Her due, for the glory of God and the salvation of souls. Please allow me to tell Your Holiness of the grief suffered by those thousands of priests and millions of the faithful who are desirous of preserving intact their Catholic Faith and of receiving the graces that they need so as to remain members of the Mystical Body of Our Lord, and who because of their fidelity are persecuted and despised by those who ought to encourage and comfort them. In the hope that at least the universal Father of the faithful will recognize their fidelity and their devotion to the Apostolic See, they await impatiently the result of proceedings undertaken with Your Holiness by the Society of St. Pius X.
Yet this is the seventh letter in two years which I send to Your Holiness; many a times, at your request, I have gone to talk to Cardinal Seper and Cardinal Palazzini. No reply, no solution has come to light so far."https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_three/Chapter_39.htm The Bishops of the SSPX have the right to do what their Saintly Founder did; to ask for the complete remedy of the injustices, but also be willing to accept temporarily, something less than ideal.
I quote Bishop Fellay's words for you referring to Archbishop Lefebvre's precedent, "when we compare the arguments given by Archbishop Lefebvre at that time we draw the conclusion that he would not have hesitated to accept what is being proposed to us. Let us not loose that sense of the Church, which was so strong in our venerated founder ... to refuse to work in the vineyard because there are still many weeds that risk stifling and obstructing the vine runs up against a notable lesson from the Bible: it is Our Lord Himself Who gives us to understand with His parable of the chaff that there will always be in one form or another weeds to be pulled up and fought against in His Church ... Our venerable founder gave to the Society bishops a task and precise duties. He made clear that the principle of unity in our Society is the Superior General ... We are praying hard for each of you that we may find ourselves all together once again in this fight which is far from over, for the greater glory of God and for love of our dear Society.
May Our Risen Lord and Our Lady deign to protect and bless you,
+Bernard Fellay..."
One Bishop does not make the Church.
First, declare your belief in Pope St. Pius X's Oath against Modernism, which teaches us, among other things, "I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles." Do you believe this and pledge to believe it to your dying breath, as the Pope commanded us? You give the appearance of believing differently - in a defectible church that lost apostolicity, where there are not at least a few good Catholic Bishops left, and that the Charism of the Truth of Faith has been lost forever. I don't believe you. I believe the Church.
Schneider is a new ordination rite priest ordained and consecrated by new formula bishops, he may just be a laymen like you.
The new rites for episcopal consecration and priestly ordination were quoted and the question discussed here, studying the deviation from the traditional rites. https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/question-about-new-rite-of-no/105/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/question-about-new-rite-of-no/105/) Father Pierre Marie has explained it. Show us the research you have done if you want to bind the Bishops and Priests of the Society to a different conclusion. Btw, if a layman has personal doubts, he is entirely free to seek out Bishops and Priests Consecrated and Ordained in the traditional rite. But he is not free to presume to pass judgment on the new rite for others, which only our Bishops and Priests have the right to do, after investigating carefully all the specific details of the individual case. Fr. Marie also gave another reason the new rite can't be per se invalid, as you would know, if you had ready that study and conclusion which conclusively demonstrated the reality over a decade ago.
You are a brainwashed young man living in a dream world (or maybe you seek to make a living from the conciliar church and have to defend it to stay in business).
Thanks for your insults and taunts. May God bless you and yours, and I forgive your rash judgment. I have less than nothing to prove to you, but here are the facts. I had a successful career in the corporate world, and worked in a top company called BNY Mellon for a couple of years. But I will be leaving it behind to pursue a vocation in the SSPX because I believe that is what God has called me to do. The essence of consecrated and religious life is taught in the Gospel call, "Which when Jesus had heard, he said to him: Yet one thing is wanting to thee. Sell all whatever thou hast and give to the poor: and thou shalt have treasure in heaven. And come, follow me" (Luk 18:22). Rather than hurl abuses at others, strive to attain the perfection you are called to in your own state of life.