This is a pseudo-split off from the R&R topic. We have so many topics that divide us, such as the question of the office of the Papacy and whether or not Russia is going to save us. What I want to know is what could be done to transform the Traditional Catholic movement into something effective.

Or is it enough that we have Mass Centers with priests that have supplied jurisdiction? Thoughts? Observations? I think this has come up before in some form, but I would like to revisit if there's anyone else interested.

If Catholics could concentrate on passing on that which was given, I'm in. 
Don't want anything tainted with NO questions.  Just the Catholic Faith.  Life is hard enough without having to figure out validity because of sketchy background.

This is a pseudo-split off from the R&R topic. We have so many topics that divide us, such as the question of the office of the Papacy and whether or not Russia is going to save us. What I want to know is what could be done to transform the Traditional Catholic movement into something effective.

Or is it enough that we have Mass Centers with priests that have supplied jurisdiction? Thoughts? Observations? I think this has come up before in some form, but I would like to revisit if there's anyone else interested.

Will never happen.  There is too much pride involved.

Will never happen.  There is too much pride involved.

Yes, it really is just that. And the modernists like it that is way. A scattered flock.

That said, I do wish it were possible to work together in a meaningful way.

Unity was obliterated in the 60s by false doctrines with the perpetration of the NO and by the wolves who entered the Church and came out of hiding.

Vatican I clearly teaches that unity of faith is guaranteed by adherence to the See of Peter, something that R&R deny.

Nevertheless, there's unity and there's unity.  Church history is replete with theological disputes among various schools.  So a certain amount of contention is unavoidable, and might even be good in the long term, as the debate tends to clarify certain doctrinal matters.

But, to take the classic example of the Thomists vs. the Molinists, regarding predestination and free will, the debate continued, as the Church would not step in to take sides or to resolve it, yet the Church did forbid the two sides from denouncing one another as non-Catholic heretics for adopting the opposing position.

Among the various Traditional groups, we have many examples of disputed questions that are elevated to the level of certainty, resulting in the effective excommunication of those who do not agree with them ... such as, questions regarding the validity of the +Thuc line, the validity of NOM Holy Orders, the status of the NOM, the status of NO annulments, etc.  Trad priests are not even pastors, much less do Trad bishops have jurisdiction.  Their only role is to make the Sacraments available to the faithful on a emergency basis.  So it's extreme over-reach for the various groups to refuse Sacraments to people who disagree with them.  If I were a priest who, say, felt the +Thuc line was doubtful or that NOM annulments were bogus, I might advise the faithful that "It is my opinion that you are putting your souls at risk [in one of these areas]."  But, that having been said, it would not be my place on impose this view on the consciences of others and refuse them the Sacraments on those grounds.

SSPV and some of their derivatives are particularly notorious for this kind of behavior.

Now, this does not mean that there aren't SOME questions that bear directly on Catholic faith that has in fact been decided by the Church, such as if there were "Trads" who rejected Vatican I or the legitimacy of Pope Pius IX (and consequently, papal infallibility and also the Immaculate Conception).  But the vast majorit of these issues have not been adjudicated by the Church and so the Trad clergy have no authority to impose them on the faithful.  Someone like a John Pontrello or Richard Ibranyi should in fact be refused the Sacraments as notorious manifest heretics.

You also have the SSPX who have traditionally tried to impose strict obligations of "obedience" both on the part of the priests and the faithful, excoriating priests who, say, leave the SSPX, as guilty of disobediece.  Yet they have no actual authority that could bind them to obedience, and this is dangerously close to schismatic to pretend that they have an authority structure outside of and in opposition to the Church.  So it's OK for them to disobey the Vicar of Christ, but not OK for a priest to disobey an SSPX "superior" who has no actual authority?

I'm not trying to turn this into the R&R Thread 2.0, but to instead seek solutions here. It would be great if we could achieve this kind of cease-fire in the quote above, though perhaps unrealistic.

There are two obstacles here. 

1) Church has not ruled, so the dogmatic extremes of the two sides, dogmatic SVs and dogmatic R&R, they each hold that the other side is heretical.

2) Pride, ego, stubbornness, desire to be popes in their little ponds.

So if both sides could rally around a sedeimpoundist/sedeprivationist type of perspective, that could definitely bridge the gap for #1 ... except that #2 pervents some from even looking at it, much less seriously considering it.

I myself have been confused with a dogmatic SV for holding that some articulations of R&R are heretical.  But I'm not a dogmatic SV, but a dogmatic indefectibilist.  I believe that some flavor of R&R are nothing more than a thinly-veiled repackaged Old Catholicism, and that they absolutely gut Catholic ecclesiology and the Catholic papacy ... so those are intolerable.

But if someone has a theory without that particular implied principle, I have no problem with it at all.  If someone wants to hold Montini and the others were replaced by doubles, more power to them.  I might disagree, but I don't have any theological or doctrinal problem with it.  After all, it's clear that they did replace Sister Lucy, and using doubles is in fact a known favorite Communist go-to tactic.  And the Communists tend to reuse the same bag of tricks over and over again.  There's actually some solid evidence that Montini was an active sodomite, and so blackmail is a possibility as well.  So, as far as I'm concerned, go for it.  Just don't try to tell me that the Church and the Papacy, guided as they are by the Holy Spirit, can corrupt the faith and the Church's public worship so badly that we are forced to break Communion with the Catholic hierarchy.

If Catholics could concentrate on passing on that which was given, I'm in.
Don't want anything tainted with NO questions.  Just the Catholic Faith.  Life is hard enough without having to figure out validity because of sketchy background.

Yes, The Faith is the one thing all trads have in common. The Modernist New Order can't take that from us.

I would dispute this. 
Even within this forum there are all kinds of splinters of the Faith.  Many have declared themselves theologians or, in essence, the pope.  Many say you don't have to believe this or that dogma and yet are still considered Catholic. 

Well, it's understandable considering the neverending flow of scandals and false/heterodox teaching coming out of Rome. 

The Enemy loves a scattered flock. Modernists love it as well.

No non Catholic will ever lurk a trad forum, or a forum such as Catholic Answers for that matter, and say "look at how they love one another".  

I have pretty much stopped keeping up with news out of Rome or political news. Imo, there is no spiritual benefit from it. But that's just me.