CathInfo.com

Quote from: MMagdala

These are simply false accusations. The SSPX is I'm sure a fine organization.  However, they hardly own some patent on Tradition.  There is a variety of adherence to Tradition (and rejection of Conciliarism, including modernism in general) among the various Ecclesia Dei groups and individuals, not to mention other trads.  It's not a monochrome.  The excerpts above reveal quite a bit of ignorance.  The text above also assumes quite a bit from someone not in a position to make such broad judgments about people he doesn't know.  
.

I agree with this.

Quote from: Matthew

Yes, it is monochrome, binary, black or white.

There IS a Crisis in the Church. There IS a false pope trying to destroy the Church (or even a lack of pope, according to some) and a ton of Churchmen not doing their jobs to protect the Faith. Lots of Modernists in the highest places in Rome, including the hierarchy and even the Papacy.

There are only TWO paths:

Resisting this (Tradition)
Going along with it (Novus Ordo, pseudo-Tradition, etc.)

That's why I say the Indult is NOT Traditional, properly speaking. I allow Indult-goers on CathInfo, because not everyone knows or understands fully, and PEOPLE (not ideas) need to be given some slack. Also, they are Catholic (since they obviously want to be real Catholics) even if misguided. It's not my place to excommunicate.

But talking about the position, strictly speaking an Indult or "approved by Rome" Latin Mass-going Catholic is NOT a Traditionalist. They are a conservative Catholic.

Why?

Because there is a cardinal rule for the Traditional Movement, and Indult-goers deny or violate this rule:

There is a Crisis in the Church, and the highest law of the Church ("The Salvation of Souls") demands that we save our souls and keep the Faith; hence we have the right to doubt-free priests and doubt-free sacraments, and a right to the timeless Mass of St. Pius V, along with all the Catholic doctrines, practices, and morality that goes along with it. To this end, we Trads have a right and a duty to set up independent (outside the authority and jurisdiction of Rome) chapels, Mass centers, seminaries, etc. with the Church supplying ALL necessary jurisdiction for Mass, confession, marriages, and ordination.


If you disagree with that mission statement for the Traditional Movement, you're not a Trad, PERIOD. At least strictly speaking. You might be conservative, you might like smells and bells, but if you don't believe in being aloof from Rome and the right of Tradition to exist without special permission, you're NOT a Trad.

I would say, here, Matt, that you also prove Magdala's point above; that you are not someone in a position to make judgement about people you don't know. There is no (and I think you'll agree with me) "traditionalists" or "non-traditionalist", there is either "Catholic", or "not". Its easy to become fixated on funneling those who are Catholic, unconsciously(?), out of what we consider Catholic. Whether its to make ourselves feel more confident in our position, to make others see our position as more right, or both. There are plenty of Catholics who are not-SSPX, not-Resistance, etc. The Archbishop and the SSPX may have had a huge role to play in the protection of Tradition and ensuring its survival, but that is no longer the case. There are many Catholics, priests and laity, who are keeping the Faith- thanks to the Archbishop, to be sure- who operate within the diocesan structures of the Church. They have the Faith, wholly. One can see that they are growing also.

And I can attest, first-hand, as I believe you cannot (but I am not sure) that it is not all "smells and bells". Sure, there are Smells and bells Catholics out there who attend, say,FSSP masses. But there are just as many people who attend "Trad" masses for the wrong reasons also; and that's what we find wrong with 'smells and bells' Catholics- that they "don't get it" and/or that they attend for the wrong reasons, etc. We don't even have to look outside the Resistance for that. And there are just as many people who attend FSSP masses (with which I have experience) who are, as I've said, are genuinely keeping the Faith. I may say that I've seen a greater deal of Charity in them as well then I've ever encountered in most Trad parishes- and I've been to many- SSPX, independent, CMRI.

Anyways, these are just my 2 cents. Not worth much. Not trying to be polemical. Just trying to get my thoughts

Quote

down on paper

and hoping for the salvation of us all.

This was not my experience in my 40 years in conciliardom.  I can only think of 2 priests from conciliardom who were free of modernism and who would meet the grand standard you assert--one of them has been dead nearly 15 years and the other one about 4 years.  I was exposed to many priests because my family traveled quite a bit and never skipped Mass.  I have encountered many times over more effeminates/fαɢɢօts in conciliarist clergy than priests who would match what you set out.

I lived in a parish that may superficially pass for what you describe.  That's where one of the priests I mentioned was.  The younger priests, superficially, appeared the same.  But in personal discussion, they were clearly tainted with modernism.  And after providing the "TLM" for 3 years, they were still bumbling through it like a bad dress rehearsal.

Also, the new rite ordinations and concecrations are a deal breaker.  Which reminds me--a bunch of R&Rers here are frequently saying they don't believe those ordinations and concecrations are valid, or at least doubt they are.  How is Bergoglio, who was concecrated in new rite (and possibly ordained in new rite--I'm not as sure about that and don't have time to look it up right now), exempt from this?

Quote from: Stubborn

...+Fellay wants to make a deal, it's just a matter of what price he is willing to pay. One minute it seems he has lost sight of why the SSPX even exists, the next minute it seems he sees clear why it exists.

Agreed.  That's why, IMO, it's going to depend entirely on what's in this proposed deal.  If it's almost unilateral with merely some lip-service profession of subjection to the Magisterium (without taking away their right to respectfully disagree with certain things about V2), then I think +Fellay would take it in a heartbeat.  But if there's a lot more in there that implies the illegitimacy of any form of resistance, then +Fellay probably wouldn't take it.

Ah Yes, Ladislaus, but what about Fr. Laguerie and the other former SSPX priests who set up the Institute of the Good Shepherd and were offered as part of their mission to "loyally" criticize the Second Vatican Council but who, a few months later was writing on his "blog" questioning how they could criticize the Council, when to do so would be to criticize the Church and who is our Mother, and the Pope who is the Vicar of Christ". ?