I don't agree with "How to help the cause revisited" (p8). I became a Catholic in 1984 under the instruction of Fr. Edward Black and have been a SSPX supporter ever since. But I've never seen anything wrong in attending indult masses [...]
It's all very well bleating on about the moral danger of human respect
but there is such a thing as common sense. Common sense tells me that Frs Morgan and Lindstrom do not accept all or any of the false notions that your paragraph 2 says they must have accepted; common sense tells me they are neither half-wits nor moral cowards.
It is frustrating that Fr. Morgan is keeping his lips buttoned from responding in any detail to the accusations made against the Society, and i do accept that if nothing changes in this regard over the next 3 to 4 years then the SSPX GB District will almost certainly be finished as a fighting force. But it's not all so cut-and-dried as you claim. I'm for giving our priests another 18 months to sort themselves out.
Fr. Lindstrom made some intersting remarks after mass in Herne recently. How can he justify trespassing on the territory of the local diocesan bishop to offer mass without permission? It is not on the rival authority of the Superior of his Order, Bishop Fellay, but simply as a priest of the Church responding to what he perceives, whether rightly or wrongly to be the needs of the faithful in the extraordinary circuмstances of the true mass not being available otherwise. The Whiting family (husband and wife) are part of that faithful. They are not an especially devout family: if they cannot continue to attend the true mass at their normal place of worship, they are in dander of lapsing from the practice of the faith.
We should heed Fr. Chazal's warning that the one thing we must avoid like the plague is to turn into the"Holier than thou" brigade. I also, perversely take heart from Fr Pfeiffer's cheerful assertion that we are all in a sense "unjust stewards". These are confusing times. I am confused; maybe Fr Morgan and Fr Lindstrom are confused - perhaps even Bp Williamson is a little bit confused?
We cannot all be stampeded into adopting a uniform stance. DENNIS WHITING
I don't agree with "How to help the cause revisited" (p8). I became a Catholic in 1984 under the instruction of Fr. Edward Black and have been a SSPX supporter ever since. But I've never seen anything wrong in attending indult masses [...]
Then you are at odds with Fr. Morgan and Fr. Lindstrom, who do. And (as it happens, with Archbishop Lefebvre, who saw the indult Mass as a trap and who said of indult priests "They are betraying us!"
I don't understand why anyone would flee the SSPX and take refuge in the Indult.
I think that some people are generating a personal hatred/dislike for the SSPX and or its priests to the extent of missing the point in the present situation.
adopting a stance if it is the right one to take. And we are convinced that it is.
The point being that all priest in the Society are, apparently, not on the same page when it comes to indult attendance.
There are few really in Ireland, who are SSPX 100%
QuoteI think that some people are generating a personal hatred/dislike for the SSPX and or its priests to the extent of missing the point in the present situation.
Lest anyone think we go to an indult, let me disabuse them. We saw the error of our ways. However, though Matthew claims that the indult goes lower than the SSPX, I remind him and others again that the prior at ICC tells folks it is OK to go to the indult. Perhaps, he can write Fr. Vassal and take this complaint up with him. The point being that all priest in the Society are, apparently, not on the same page when it comes to indult attendance.
QuoteThere are few really in Ireland, who are SSPX 100%
That may have to do with the fact that SSPX is not 100% SSPX any longer. If you have a superior general who admits that 95% of V2 can pass muster, (and did so now more than a decade ago), and if, furthermore, he states that the New Mass was "legitimately promulgated," how could one expect that the Fellay-flavored sspx might be 100% Lefebvrian SSPX. Add to that our knowledge that as early as 1997, Bp. Fellay was actively conspiring with others to find a way of being practically reunited with Rome.
Is it any wonder that the faithful are all over the lot on this one? It's been years since SSPX priests and leaders have not blown a clear trumpet blast from the pulpit.
It was earlier than '97. I heard him give a conference in '96 wherein he openly promoted the concept, using the words "luscious plumb" as
the image of what 'normalization' would be for the Society. He said it
is like a very attractive and delicious fruit that is there for the taking
if we would only reach out and pick it from the tree.
I don't agree with "How to help the cause revisited" (p8). I became a Catholic in 1984 under the instruction of Fr. Edward Black and have been a SSPX supporter ever since. But I've never seen anything wrong in attending indult masses and see nothing wrong now in attending SSPX masses. It's all very well bleating on about the moral danger of human respect but there is such a thing as common sense. Common sense tells me that Frs Morgan and Lindstrom do not accept all or any of the false notions that your paragraph 2 says they must have accepted; common sense tells me they are neither half-wits nor moral cowards. It is frustrating that Fr. Morgan is keeping his lips buttoned from responding in any detail to the accusations made against the Society, and i do accept that if nothing changes in this regard over the next 3 to 4 years then the SSPX GB District will almost certainly be finished as a fighting force. But it's not all so cut-and-dried as you claim. I'm for giving our priests another 18 months to sort themselves out.
Fr. Lindstrom made some intersting remarks after mass in Herne recently. How can he justify trespassing on the territory of the local diocesan bishop to offer mass without permission? It is not on the rival authority of the Superior of his Order, Bishop Fellay, but simply as a priest of the Church responding to what he perceives, whether rightly or wrongly to be the needs of the faithful in the extraordinary circuмstances of the true mass not being available otherwise. The Whiting family (husband and wife) are part of that faithful. They are not an especially devout family: if they cannot continue to attend the true mass at their normal place of worship, they are in dander of lapsing from the practice of the faith.
We should heed Fr. Chazal's warning that the one thing we must avoid like the plague is to turn into the"Holier than thou" brigade. I also, perversely take heart from Fr Pfeiffer's cheerful assertion that we are all in a sense "unjust stewards". These are confusing times. I am confused; maybe Fr Morgan and Fr Lindstrom are confused - perhaps even Bp Williamson is a little bit confused? We cannot all be stampeded into adopting a uniform stance. DENNIS WHITING
It is not necessarily irrational to judge an authority figure's rightness or wrongness on a particular issue from what you know of their character. Even if, for the time being and for reasons which may be sound, they refuse to give out detailed reasons for their choice. When you are aware of strong arguments for them to choose the other way, it is an uneasy situation to be in. There has to be a time limit. Is there not room for an honest differrence of opinion as to whether that time limit has already expired or whether it can go on for a bit longer?[/color]
As to Indult masses, I thought the objection to them was not that they were bad in themselves but that they tended to weaken the position of the SSPX. A Tridentine mass celebrated with due reverence is surely always valid and legitimate, even if the celebrant has unnecessarily sought the permission of the diocesan bishop?Dennis Whiting
For clarification, I have no quarrel with denniswhiting. I have met him more than once and have no reason to question is sincerity.
I wouldn't attend the Indult (Approved Mass).QuoteI don't see any difference between the Indult and the SSPX.I don't dispute the SSPX have good priests but my support is with the resistance.
I never kept one foot in the Novus ordo and another in Tradition. It's unfortunate I can't support the SSPX.
I don't believe outside of the resistance there is no salvation.
Well, John Grace, you also need to understand that the SSPX priests are VALID priests ordained by VALID bishops.
Quote from: denniswhitingIt is not necessarily irrational to judge an authority figure's rightness or wrongness on a particular issue from what you know of their character. Even if, for the time being and for reasons which may be sound, they refuse to give out detailed reasons for their choice. When you are aware of strong arguments for them to choose the other way, it is an uneasy situation to be in. There has to be a time limit. Is there not room for an honest differrence of opinion as to whether that time limit has already expired or whether it can go on for a bit longer?[/color]
As to Indult masses, I thought the objection to them was not that they were bad in themselves but that they tended to weaken the position of the SSPX. A Tridentine mass celebrated with due reverence is surely always valid and legitimate, even if the celebrant has unnecessarily sought the permission of the diocesan bishop?Dennis Whiting
Well, Dennis, We can see that you know very little about the apostacy in the Conciliar Church.
The Indult masses are invalid, if the celebrants have been ordained in the New Rite after 1968. These celebrants are not true priests. They can go thru the motions of saying the Tridentine mass, but cannot effect the sacrament.
I think you are definately a troll :reporter: :detective:
To me this is the master deception of the devil! All of the p r e s b y t e r s in the world can say the Tridentine mass, and none of these masses will be valid, if they have been ordained in the new rite.
On countless occasions I was told outside an SSPX chapel, it is ok to attend the Indult. Like any District you have SSPX laity who attend both SSPX and the Indult.
What denniswhiting raises is not a new topic. Naturally, you have a few SSPX laity attending the Indult 'on the sly'.
First, if a novus ordo is also celebrated at the church where the "indult" mess is being said, how do you really know if you're getting communion from the novus ordo, or the "indult" especially if there's only one tabernacle there? For all you know, the priest is only consecrating the host for himself, and you really don't know if the priest is taking hosts that were already consecrated from the tabernacle that were there for the prior novus ordo that was "offered" earlier.
Quote from: parentsfortruth
First, if a novus ordo is also celebrated at the church where the "indult" mess is being said, how do you really know if you're getting communion from the novus ordo, or the "indult" especially if there's only one tabernacle there? For all you know, the priest is only consecrating the host for himself, and you really don't know if the priest is taking hosts that were already consecrated from the tabernacle that were there for the prior novus ordo that was "offered" earlier.
Good point, PFT.
In a NO church in Sydney, a very elderly pre-vat 2 ordained, offered a TLM. The authorities forbid him to consecrate hosts for the congregation and he must take the hosts from the tabernacle. One Sunday he did as usual, but when he opened the tabernacle, guess what? No hosts! So he had to apologise to the congregation. "No communions today, folk" But then, what did they miss? Sad story but true.
Quote from: John GraceOn countless occasions I was told outside an SSPX chapel, it is ok to attend the Indult. Like any District you have SSPX laity who attend both SSPX and the Indult.
What denniswhiting raises is not a new topic. Naturally, you have a few SSPX laity attending the Indult 'on the sly'.
Well, if you understand that the position of the Neo SSPX is
the New Novus Ordo rite is valid
The episcopal consecrations are valid
This is the official position of the SSPX now. In the past, the SSPX did not believe the Novus Ordo services were valid and they did not believe their "priests" were valid.
That all changed several years ago.
They published an article in the Angelus about the episcopal consecrations of the Novus Ordo being valid.
This is a fact, but I do not have the docuмentation on hand to prove it. Most of us know this.
The Neo SSPX laity are mostly uneducated about these changes and blindly follow along with Felllay's position. This is EXACTLY what happened in the aftermath of Vatican 11
The "remnant" of the SSPX sees the errors. I have heard talks by Fr Pfeiffer on this subject.
Quote from: hollingsworthThe point being that all priest in the Society are, apparently, not on the same page when it comes to indult attendance.
No of course they're not.
Inconsistency on this question is one of the many signs of decay in the modern SSPX. In France there is a fashion for getting married with two priests: an indult priest who does the exchange of vows and a Society priest who says the Mass. It is iniquitous, because it is tantamount to approving the old lie that SSPX marriages are not valid. But it happens all the time now. Fr. Chazal's niece was married that way.
The priests of the Society are not "on the same page" on the question of the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo, whether Vatican II should be thrown out or merely 'reformed', or whether it can be simply 'read in the light of Tradition', and so many more things besides. It has lost its unity after having first having seen a diminishing of its Apostolicity, its Catholicity and its holiness.
It might be useful to listen again to Fr. Pfeiffer explaining the crisis in the SSPX in relation to the Four Marks of the Church:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrT5_fSoTmw
Motu Proprio Masses: One thing is to encourage priests to celebrate the true Mass, but it is another thing to encourage our faithful to attend such Masses. The reason being that in addition to the Traditional Liturgy, sound doctrine is also required, and this latter is called into question when a priest, albeit in good faith, accepts the doctrinal rectitude of the NOM in theory or in practice.
I doubt that fr morgan would write anything of the sort now, he has been turned into a paper tiger.
Neil Obstat:QuoteIt was earlier than '97. I heard him give a conference in '96 wherein he openly promoted the concept, using the words "luscious plumb" as
the image of what 'normalization' would be for the Society. He said it
is like a very attractive and delicious fruit that is there for the taking
if we would only reach out and pick it from the tree.
This is a fascinating remark! You don't have the notes from that conference, do you? Is it available online anyplace? I take it that you mean by "promoted the concept" that Bp. Fellay spoke positively and encouragingly about possible normalization with Rome in the forseeable future.
Quote from: TheRecusantQuote from: hollingsworthThe point being that all priests in the Society are, apparently, not on the same page when it comes to indult attendance.
No of course they're not.
Inconsistency on this question is one of the many signs of decay in the modern SSPX.
QuoteIn France there is a fashion for getting married with two priests: an indult priest who does the exchange of vows and a Society priest who says the Mass. It is iniquitous, because it is tantamount to approving the old lie that SSPX marriages are not valid. But it happens all the time now. Fr. Chazal's niece was married that way.
The priests of the Society are not "on the same page" on the question of the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo, whether Vatican II should be thrown out or merely 'reformed', or whether it can be simply 'read in the light of Tradition', and so many more things besides. It has lost its unity after having first having seen a diminishing of its Apostolicity, its Catholicity and its holiness.
It might be useful to listen again to Fr. Pfeiffer explaining the crisis in the SSPX in relation to the Four Marks of the Church:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrT5_fSoTmw
Very silly as the priest does not marry them, he is a witness.
Quote from: John GraceOn countless occasions I was told outside an SSPX chapel, it is ok to attend the Indult. Like any District you have SSPX laity who attend both SSPX and the Indult.
What denniswhiting raises is not a new topic. Naturally, you have a few SSPX laity attending the Indult 'on the sly'.
Well, if you understand that the position of the Neo SSPX is
the New Novus Ordo rite is valid
The episcopal consecrations are valid
This is the official position of the SSPX now. In the past, the SSPX did not believe the Novus Ordo services were valid and they did not believe their "priests" were valid.
That all changed several years ago.
They published an article in the Angelus about the episcopal consecrations of the Novus Ordo being valid.
This is a fact, but I do not have the docuмentation on hand to prove it. Most of us know this.
The Neo SSPX laity are mostly uneducated about these changes and blindly follow along with Felllay's position. This is EXACTLY what happened in the aftermath of Vatican 11
The "remnant" of the SSPX sees the errors. I have heard talks by Fr Pfeiffer on this subject.
Also, one does not have to believe the Newschurch's rites and Sacraments are invalid in order to be a Sede. A Sede can believe both the Seat of Peter is empty (in terms of infallibility of Faith, morality, etc) while still believing the novus ordo rites are still valid (at least up to this point), but they will become invalid in time, when the apostasy if full blown and the abomination of desolation is here.
Emerentiana,
Nice theory, but it has nothing to do with reality or Catholic sacramental theology.
The Novus Ordo according to the book has always been held as valid by the Archbishop, I think he knew something about Church sacramental theology.