Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Universal Traditional Catholic Principles, the FSSP, and Sedevacantism  (Read 4620 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


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:

Quote
"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

Quote
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.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
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?