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.

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 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 know Fr. Thielen, very good. Yes, it is very good that he wishes to converse with you.  Keep that appt. and God Bless.

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?

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 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.  

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.