Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on October 16, 2021, 11:43:23 AM
-
From the mailbag --
A man wrote in saying he doesn't have a Resistance Mass within 5 hours, and he currently attends the Indult. He asked for advice. Here is my response:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first priority is to keep the Faith and save our souls. This usually includes access to the Sacraments.
If you can't do anything more to support/attend the Resistance, then you can't. God knows your heart.
I am not an expert at the changes made to the Rite of Ordination/Rite of Consecration at Vatican II... others are more knowledgeable about this. I am not of the opinion that all Novus Ordo priests are laymen. Most are poorly trained, yes. Many even teach error. And some are probably invalid. But it depends on how crazy the bishop was -- again, in my opinion. But even if just 1%, 5%, 10%, or 20% are invalid, do you want that doubt nagging at you?
If you are going to attend the Diocesan Indult because that's all you have, there are a few pointers:
1. Beware it could be taken away at any time, by the corrupt Modernist authorities/hierarchy. It is NOT a long-term solution.
2. You need to get together with other like-minded people, and if there is no Resistance in your area, then CREATE ONE. At the very least, if there's the slightest seed of a real Traditional group in your area, you need to support it 100%. That means attending all the Masses they offer in your area, even if it's only a few times a year and "doesn't seem to solve your problem" of where to attend Mass. You have to support the humble beginnings, or you'll never have a Resistance option. See #1.
I use "Resistance" as synonymous with "classic Traditional Catholic" because that's basically what it is. Not making a dogma of the Pope question, being totally aloof from the Conciliar Church, having good seminaries for training and 100% certain ordinations, offering the Mass and ALL sacraments in various independent, but canonically irregular/illicit chapels all over the country. In other words, the classic "Traditional Catholic" position which has existed from the very beginning. The SSPX used to be the best Traditional Catholic organization but they lost it. They forgot we don't need permission to be Catholic -- especially permission from Modernists and destroyers.
It's not that you need to attend the Resistance, per se, but you MUST attend a truly Traditional Catholic chapel. One which is independent of the modernists. One which offers ALL sacraments, not just the Mass. One where the priest has been properly trained at a seminary. And whose ordination is beyond reproach or doubt. And one which is willing to continue operation until the Crisis in the Church ends, whenever God decides to do that. That rules out the SSPX. Now you might find these requirements met in some Sede quarters, I'll admit. But the problem is, they tend to over-emphasize the Pope question, to justify their separation from other non-Sede Traditional Catholic groups. I personally believe that the Sedevacantists muddy the waters and add something unnecessary -- an unnecessary dogma, and point of division -- to the Traditional Catholic package that has existed in all times and places since 1969.
It's not that I hate sedevacantists. I scoff at Sedevacantist chapels, Sedevacantist dating sites. The idea that "Traditional Catholic isn't enough; you have to be Sedevacantist Traditional Catholic!" Sedevacantism is nothing more than a personal opinion about the Crisis in the Church. Persons with that opinion USED to sit side-by-side with non-Sedevacantists at Independent chapels and SSPX chapels all over the country -- and many still do. It's Sedevacantism as a "cult" or an exclusive club that I oppose. It turns a single opinion into a new dogma of the Faith, and is then used to divide Traditional Catholics and reduce the number of Mass-Hours nationwide (1 Faithful attending Mass for 1 hour is a Mass-Hour. 20 Faithful attending Mass for 5 days, or 100 Faithful attending Mass once, would both equal 100 Mass-Hours). Dogmatic sedevacantists -- those who condemn all non-Sedevacantists to hell -- are the worst; they are as bad as any clown-nose-wearing Novus Ordo priest.
As for the SSPX -- Perhaps some senior citizens could get by attending the SSPX, since they only have a few years left on earth, and need someone to administer Extreme Unction in the all-too-near future. But younger individuals, those with families (such as myself) must necessarily take a longer-term view. I have no choice -- I MUST consider the future, and not just the next 5 years. I have a LOT of kids who need to be raised in the practice of the Faith. I need to know my chapel is going to be there in 5, 10, or even 20 years. The Indult, even aside from its myriad of other problems, is far too unstable. A new bishop or Pope can take it all away with the stroke of a pen. And the SSPX is heading that direction.
-
I'm in a very similar situation myself which has become very distressing for me to say the very least. My only 2 options are to attend an ICKSP oratory(TLM and all traditional sacraments offered exclusively) or an independent chapel. The independent chapel priest is Fr. James Thielen, ordained by Bp. Carmona. He is a sedevacantist but half the people that attend there are not sedes. I've been maybe 5 times and Father hasn't mentioned anything related to sedevacantism. He just preaches the true faith without bringing up any current events(at least so far). I have not been able to receive communion from him yet. He wants to meet with me first but he's been very busy because of travel. Considering that most sede priests seem to think the new rites of ordination/consecration are doubtfully vaid, I'm doubting if I would be permitted to attend both the ICKSP and this sede chapel and receive communion at both. Do you guys think my assumption is correct? Also what about an Eastern liturgy? Would a sede priest allow someone to receive communion who also receives at a Byzantine parish? I hope to talk to the priest soon for definitive answers but in the meantime I'd like to hear what you guys think. Also if all these masses or a combination of them is impossible, which should I attend? I'd like to attend several of them if at all possible only because the sede mass isn't very frequent. Thoughts? Thanks.
-
To say something new I haven't said a bunch of times before:
Trad chapels, including the SSPX, used to treat their parishioners like they were sovereign, adults, in charge of their own conscience. They didn't over-step their authority by trying to "own" them like a cult leader wanting to "own" his members body and soul. Nor were they treated like a business treats "THEIR" customers, who they don't want to share with competitors.
No, from the beginning, Trad chapels were neither CULTS which treat members like children, nor BUSINESSES which treat them like "repeat customers they want to have" and not share with "competitors". Today, many groups have fallen into one of those traps. They are some combination of a cult and a business.
24/7, the constant, prevailing question is: "How will this benefit THE GROUP?" rather than "How will this benefit souls?" You see this again and again in the neo-SSPX, for example. But they are not alone. Pfeifferville is the same way. He'd rather have his "faithful" sitting at home on Sunday than patronizing another chapel. His parishioners "belong" to him like a person belongs to their spouse -- anything else is adultery.
Now priests would PREACH against the Indult, don't get me wrong. My own priest did this! But he never attempted to CONTROL the parishioners on this matter. There were no investigations, nothing to sign, no attempts at control. He would even complain in sermons about those who go "back and forth" between an Independent chapel (like his own) and the Indult. But he never persecuted those who did this. He knew they had the right; it was his job to CONVINCE THEM if he could.
And the same goes for other issues, such as the Pope question. I don't have a problem with the SSPX preaching against Sedevacantism, or Sede priests preaching for it. What I have a problem with, is groups getting DOGMATIC about something which is NOT a dogma, and attempting to force their OPINION on their parishioners.
-
I'm in a very similar situation myself which has become very distressing for me to say the very least. My only 2 options are to attend an ICKSP oratory(TLM and all traditional sacraments offered exclusively) or an independent chapel. The independent chapel priest is Fr. James Thielen, ordained by Bp. Carmona. He is a sedevacantist but half the people that attend there are not sedes. I've been maybe 5 times and Father hasn't mentioned anything related to sedevacantism. He just preaches the true faith without bringing up any current events(at least so far). I have not been able to receive communion from him yet. He wants to meet with me first but he's been very busy because of travel. Considering that most sede priests seem to think the new rites of ordination/consecration are doubtfully vaid, I'm doubting if I would be permitted to attend both the ICKSP and this sede chapel and receive communion at both. Do you guys think my assumption is correct? Also what about an Eastern liturgy? Would a sede priest allow someone to receive communion who also receives at a Byzantine parish? I hope to talk to the priest soon for definitive answers but in the meantime I'd like to hear what you guys think. Also if all these masses or a combination of them is impossible, which should I attend? I'd like to attend several of them if at all possible only because the sede mass isn't very frequent. Thoughts? Thanks.
I fully understand Todd. For three years I was in a situation NOT of my own making whereby I was stuck between three warring priests, each with his own chapel. I had friends/family in all three, and choosing one, as I was trapped into doing, would result in my having to sever relationships with those to whom I had family or filial obligations. Tired of being the “monkey in the middle,” I rejected all of them, instead, making a two night trip every other month to a place where I had no social, vocational, or parish-political connections. I was someone who “passed through on business.” This is one MAJOR drawback of the traditional Catholic universe. It reminds me of something I read about an older woman, in France, I think, who attended an SSPX chapel and was well acquainted with SSPX hierarchy. She invited Bishop Williamson and some friends to her home as a private citizen, for tea shortly before or after he was kicked out of the SSPX. Afterwards, she was denied the sacraments at the chapel she’d helped to found because the priest was on the outs with His Excellency. She was informed that the price of reinstatement was to confess her courtesy to Bishop Williamson as a sin! I’m not sure what she did, but I would have had words with that priest. Using the Sacraments as a weapon is wrong.
-
I would definitely throw Eastern Rite liturgies into the mix of possibilities ... even if not ideal ... at least as a source of valid Sacraments.
Most of the Byzantine Rite families (Byzantine/Ruthenian, Ukrainian, Melkite) didn't tamper with their Rites very much at all. They do use the vernacular, but that's been going on forever in the Eastern Rites, and the form of the consecration at Mass is legitimate ("for you and for many").
Maronites did tamper with some of the externals of the Rites (rearranged sanctuaries, etc.), but not really with the form, and they typically still do the consecration in Aramaic. But these can be liberal, with altar girls, etc. No Communion in the hand though since they distribute Holy Communion with intincture (dipping the host into the chalice). But some of the externals of their Liturgy can be a bit hard to take, depending on who you find.
You do have to occasionally be aware of the straggler from the Novus Ordo. You occasionally get a bi-ritual NO presbyter helping out at a Byzantine Liturgy and even once in a while transferring completely to the Eastern Rite and becoming permanent.
-
I take it from the above definition of classical traditional catholicism, that ABL and the SSPX didn't fit that criteria until after 1988?
-
I know Fr. Thielen, very good. Yes, it is very good that he wishes to converse with you. Keep that appt. and God Bless.
-
No Communion in the hand though since they distribute Holy Communion with intincture (dipping the host into the chalice).
Unfortunately, this isn't guaranteed anymore. Since covid, at least some of the Greek Catholic churches in Eastern Europe have adopted the practice of distributing (only) the Body of Christ in the hand, "to stop the spread".
From my experience, Greek Catholic priests are a mixed bag very much like their Novus Ordo counterparts. Adherence to Vatican II is required and assumed. False ecuмenism is wide spread: praying in common with schismatics or even the enemies of Christ, or by routinely quoting Protestant authors as authorities during Sunday sermons.
Even though the percentage may be lower than in the universalist kumbaya world of Novus Ordo, I still think that most of Greek Catholics don't care about questions like "Why am I Greek Catholic and not Orthodox?", they simply go where they were raised. Those that do care also tend to be more cognizant of the effects of the conciliar disaster. However, since allegiance to the pope is the most distinctive mark of a Greek Catholic in contrast with an Orthodox (their other practices being very similar), speaking out against modernist abuses that are ultimately promoted by the pope would probably strike at the very heart of such a Greek Catholic's identity. I've observed a certain tendency among these faithful to adopt explicitly Orthodox (and thus anti-Catholic) stances instead of moving in the direction of the Traditional Catholic movement.
Finally, it might be worth mentioning that some of the modernist abuses currently being promoted skillfully take advantage of the differences between the Catholic West and East, notably the possibility of married priests, and "useful idiots" from Greek Catholicism may end up playing a large part in this being successful, perhaps especially in populations otherwise resistant to change -- although the astonishing speed of accepting Communion on the tongue in countries that had it absolutely forbidden just two years ago (even for Novus Ordo) makes me wonder whether this "resistance to change" is actually a thing.
-
I have not been able to receive communion from him yet. He wants to meet with me first but he's been very busy because of travel. Considering that most sede priests seem to think the new rites of ordination/consecration are doubtfully vaid, I'm doubting if I would be permitted to attend both the ICKSP and this sede chapel and receive communion at both. Do you guys think my assumption is correct?
I am wondering why you, presuming you are a baptised Catholic in the state of grace, would need the permission of the priest to receive Holy Communion. This is not the Catholic way. Never has been. It seems very cultish to me. Why did you hold back from going to receive the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus? Is this your idea or did you consult with the lay members of the congregation. Or did the priest say something to you?
-
Unfortunately, this isn't guaranteed anymore. Since covid, at least some of the Greek Catholic churches in Eastern Europe have adopted the practice of distributing (only) the Body of Christ in the hand, "to stop the spread".
I haven't seen this in the US at all. What they've been doing here is having multiple Communion spoons sitting in alcohol, and if they make contact with the person's mouth, the switch out the spoon with one that had been soaking in alcohol.
-
From my experience, Greek Catholic priests are a mixed bag very much like their Novus Ordo counterparts. Adherence to Vatican II is required and assumed. False ecuмenism is wide spread: praying in common with schismatics or even the enemies of Christ, or by routinely quoting Protestant authors as authorities during Sunday sermons.
My experience is that they barely know what's in Vatican II and could hardly care less about it. Their basic attitude is that it's irrelevant to them, being a pastoral thing mostly dealing with the Roman Rite Church. At least among the Ukrainians, even though they have social contact with their Orthodox counterparts, they've largely eschewed any kind of ecuмenical activity. At one point their Major Archbishop wrote a letter to Rome protesting the latter's ecuмenical outreach to the Russian Orthdoox.
As far as religious indifferentism, that part is widespread even (to a slightly lesser extent) among Traditional Catholics.
I've gone to many Eastern Liturgies over the past few years, and I have not once heard a sermon about the errors of V2, promoting religious liberty or indifferentism, etc. Sure, there are lame ones that are touchy-feely and have little content about the faith per se. I even heard one sermon emphasizing the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church for salvation.
So maybe there's something different going on in "Eastern Europe" but I haven't seen it in the US ... except for a bit among the Maronites.
-
I haven't seen this in the US at all. What they've been doing here is having multiple Communion spoons sitting in alcohol, and if they make contact with the person's mouth, the switch out the spoon with one that had been soaking in alcohol.
Here in Columbus, Ohio the Byzantine Church I attend on occasion is giving just the bread/body but not in the hand. Priest puts it in your mouth with his hands like the Roman rite.
-
I am wondering why you, presuming you are a baptised Catholic in the state of grace, would need the permission of the priest to receive Holy Communion. This is not the Catholic way. Never has been. It seems very cultish to me. Why did you hold back from going to receive the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus? Is this your idea or did you consult with the lay members of the congregation. Or did the priest say something to you?
I texted the priest about this before I attended the first time and he said before I could partake of any sacraments I needed to speak with him. I have a meeting with him today at 1 o'clock to talk about this.
-
Thank you for explaining the situation, Todd.
So you have been to Holy Mass 5 or so times and have not been “allowed” by the priest to receive the graces of the Sacrament of the Blessed Eucharist. I find this unconscienable on the part of the priest.
I am in an even worse situation than you in that I have no Church or even occasional Mass to attend. But I do have the consolation of being familiar with the practice of the faith, and rules governing it, before this cultish behaviour came along.
Something similar happened to me when, visiting friends, I wanted to accept an invitation to Holy Mass at a sedevacante chapel. Sadly I was informed that I would not be welcome unless I agreed to a certain sede-made tenet. I then had to exclude myself from attendance in spite of the fact that I rarely had such an opportunity to attend the Holy Sacrifice. So I was again home-again, not by choice but by exclusion.
What a world we live in when the one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church is acting in this way, or rather its regulationists.
-
Well I spoke with the priest yesterday. Basically to partake of communion there, I'd have to attend sede chapels exclusively. He referred me to Father Cekada's articles on not attending any Mass where the Pope's name is mentioned in the canon. I was pretty disappointed to hear this. But he is a very kind elderly man. He spoke with me for 2 hours and we really hit it off. From what I gather, he's totally convinced that sedevacantism is an absolute fact and he wants to have meetings with me to try to prove it to me. I am at a crossroads. I love it there and I really hit it off with this priest but the thing is, I'm not convinced of the sede position anymore than the R&R position. Please, please pray for me everyone, that the Holy Ghost will show me the truth and give me confidence in it.
:pray:
-
Well I spoke with the priest yesterday. Basically to partake of communion there, I'd have to attend sede chapels exclusively. He referred me to Father Cekada's articles on not attending any Mass where the Pope's name is mentioned in the canon. I was pretty disappointed to hear this. But he is a very kind elderly man. He spoke with me for 2 hours and we really hit it off. From what I gather, he's totally convinced that sedevacantism is an absolute fact and he wants to have meetings with me to try to prove it to me. I am at a crossroads. I love it there and I really hit it off with this priest but the thing is, I'm not convinced of the sede position anymore than the R&R position. Please, please pray for me everyone, that the Holy Ghost will show me the truth and give me confidence in it.
:pray:
See? It's another dogma of the Catholic Faith to some sedevacantists. They want exclusive access to your pocketbook, as well as "you" being solidly in their column, as they compete with other chapels for parishioners. It's about competition and greed.
If the priest himself isn't outright addicted to luxury, he at least wants that money to make HIS chapel more glorious, and wants more people.
I'm telling you, a good priest would provide a service and let Trad Catholics attend according to their needs and conscience. That's what Supplied Jurisdiction is all about -- meeting the necessity of the people. That is what the Traditional Movement has been about, going back to 1970. Even priests who, today, would probably give in to some of the "McDonalds vs Burger King" competitive spirit, didn't dare do so "back in the day" (1980s, 90s) because that just wasn't done, or at least it wasn't a widespread practice yet. Maybe it's because the Traditional Movement was new, the disobedience was still a new thing, it didn't fit like a glove yet, so priests felt the need to be on their best behavior, to make the best possible case for themselves before God.
But again: Good priests do NOT try to bind the consciences of others with ANYTHING other than Catholic dogmas. Unknowns such as the exact nature of the Crisis in the Church, or the Pope question, are NOT new dogmas. Priests can and should advise you, they can give their opinions -- but they must leave you to follow your conscience on such a matter of prudence which does not have the certainty of Faith.
Another point: note that Fr. Cekada started a cult. This "good priest" is quoting Fr. C like he's some sort of guru. What was he, a prophet of some kind? Some random priest writes a book, and now other priests refer back to him like he's the Magisterium of the Church? There is definitely much sickness in the Sedevacantist world, even if we acknowledge (of course) that not every Sede is a bad person.
-
Well I spoke with the priest yesterday. Basically to partake of communion there, I'd have to attend sede chapels exclusively. He referred me to Father Cekada's articles on not attending any Mass where the Pope's name is mentioned in the canon. I was pretty disappointed to hear this. But he is a very kind elderly man. He spoke with me for 2 hours and we really hit it off. From what I gather, he's totally convinced that sedevacantism is an absolute fact and he wants to have meetings with me to try to prove it to me. I am at a crossroads. I love it there and I really hit it off with this priest but the thing is, I'm not convinced of the sede position anymore than the R&R position. Please, please pray for me everyone, that the Holy Ghost will show me the truth and give me confidence in it.
:pray:
The priest obviously is a heretic. He creates his own dogmas. Communicatio in sacris with heretics does not please God.
-
That's what I thought. A cult wanting to control your soul. Sure he's NICE! And a control freak! He has no mandate to make extra 'church teachings'. I am sorry your in an uncomfortable spot. Don't get hooked in a false church.
-
Of course I could be wrong but he seems very genuine. He's probably 90 years old. The chapel is very, very tiny. He doesn't have a computer and isn't privy to most current events or what other trad priests say about these issues except the ones he has known personally in his past, like Father Cekada. After having spoken to him for a couple hours, it seems to me that he thinks the way he does because of his age and the fact that he's disconnected from technology and what goes on in the trad world. He wasn't even sure what the Byzantine Church was and wrote it down to ask Bp. Dolan. He also didn't know what a DVD was called but neither do my grandparents so I guess that's normal lol. He joined CMRI in the early 90s and suffered through the scandal on their leader at the time and then went independent. Don't get me wrong, he knows the traditional Catholic faith very, very well but it seems like he knows less about the trad movement and what other sede priests allow and don't allow than do. He appears to genuinely believe that all sede priests say you can't go to una cuм Masses. He'll refer to certain articles or pamphlets on these things. I get the impression that he's always been completely focused on his priesthood (offering Mass, distributing the Sacraments, preaching, etc) and never studied a lot about the intellectual proofs and ideas of sedevacantism. Keep in mind that his advanced age may have an effect on these things for various reasons. Like I said before he's got to be in his 90s and I honestly think he's confused about what goes on outside of his own life living in rural Ohio offering Mass at several very small mission chapels and bringing the sacraments to many off the beaten path. He drove an hour just to meet with me and we talked for several hours. He appeared to be very happy to have someone to sit and talk with. I didn't sense any deceit or dishonesty whatsoever. With all of this in mind, I appreciate and completely understand everyone's warnings which I am considering very carefully. Please pray for me.
-
Todd, use logic thought, and don't look for excuses for an old man going astray.
-
:pray:
He may be old and computer illiterate. He joined a cult and is stuck. We can feel for this priest's position because he wants to faithfully fulfil his lifelong vocation as a priest of God, but the crisis in the Church means his opportunities have been and are limited, as all of ours have. This is so sad.
Don't get me wrong, he knows the traditional Catholic faith very, very well
Then he should also know that nobody has the right to invent new doctrines. This is absolutely forbidden. He may not enforce this false teaching, and prevent you from receiving Our Blessed Lord.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." [Galatians 1:8 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=55&ch=1&l=8#x)]
-
You guys are right. I'm letting my emotions influence my logic. I really do appreciate your concern for my situation. Thank you.
-
What's the difference between this sede priest and those who refuse communion with the SSPX on other grounds such as entering into a premature agreement with Rome? Isn't this really just the same mentality applied to different problems? Earlier in this thread someone offered a definition of what it means to be a "classical" traditional catholic and the definition included something about being aloof from the official hierarchy (whatever that means). Is this not adding something extraneous to the faith? Or another suggested that we must adhere to his definition of "conciliar church" in order to be in good standing as a traditional catholic (according to him). At least the sede priest is concerned about being in communion with a man who openly denies the faith, whereas some are more concerned about the mixing with actual catholics who hold differing opinions or ideas that are open to charitable debate.
-
If he didn’t know what the Byzantine Rite was, he’s certainly not been properly educated. That should clearly come up during a normal course of seminary studies, whether in History or a class on the Mass and Sacred Liturgy. That sets off some alarm bells for me.
-
If he didn’t know what the Byzantine Rite was, he’s certainly not been properly educated. That should clearly come up during a normal course of seminary studies, whether in History or a class on the Mass and Sacred Liturgy. That sets off some alarm bells for me.
I shouldn't have said he didn't know what it was. When I elaborated he didn't seem to be familiar with it or if there have been any changes with their ordinations/consecrations. I can't say for sure if he didn't know what it was or just didn't know much of anything about it. Like I said, I've only had one meeting with him so what I've said are first impressions, for I do not know him well at all.
-
True Catholics pray for their enemies. Those against faith. It is in the traditional Mass.
-
Oh yes, this thread is good.
That's a pretty rough situation, even more for me, because I suffer with no traditional chapels here, neither sede ones. I only have an Indult Diocesan mass here. I pray to get a job and move out to a city that has a Resistance chapel here in Brazil, most probably the Benedictines of Santa Cruz, of Bishop Thomas Aquinas.