Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on October 18, 2015, 01:29:16 PM
-
My minimalist, back-to-basics "Trad Checklist" for evaluating a chapel:
1. Is the priest properly ordained in the old rite (by a bishop who himself was ordained/consecrated in the old rite)?
2. Was the priest FORMED in a Traditional seminary, or at least has the priest fully converted to Tradition? Does the priest defend Tradition, and attack Modernism, Vatican II and the Conciliar religion sufficiently to teach/warn his congregation of their severe, grave dangers?
3. Does the priest say the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Mass in Latin, and only give/recommend the other Sacraments according to the Pre-Vatican II form as well?
If a chapel fails any of these 3 points, it's not a Traditional chapel and is not a safe place for us to park our families during the Crisis.
On the other hand, if it passes these 3 tests, it is SAFE ENOUGH TO TRUST WITH AT LEAST OUR SUNDAY MASS ATTENDANCE.
If you're looking for a place to donate your life to, swear lifetime allegiance to, buy T-Shirts for, etc. then you might want to add other points.
But I, for one, am not interested in THAT kind of Traditional Catholicism. I only want to be a simple Traditional Catholic, keeping the Faith during this Crisis in the Church. I don't need a team to root for, or a priest to sign over my Intellect and/or Free Will to.
-
1962 or 1955 Missal? Sedevacantist or Recognize and Resist? Feeneyite or Non-Feeneyite? Smoking or non-Smoking? Dark haired or light-haired priest? Irish or German? American or Foreign?
WHO CARES?
On those matters, you can have a preference, but unless it seriously impacts the Faith, or your family's ability to keep the Faith, these points are NOT sufficiently grave to merit staying home on Sunday if you have options in your area for Mass.
You can call this my opinion, but it's an opinion formed with the Mind of the Church doing all my thinking for me.
-
Oh brother.
-
What is wrong with you Matthew? The faith of the priest is somehow missing from your infallible list of commandments.
Furthermore it seems intentional, because you go on to say that it doesn't matter if the priest is feeneyite. Feeneyism is a heresy.
It's seems pharisaical to complain about the Ambrose charlatan but to encourage people to attend feeneyite masses.
-
"I don't need a priest to sign my intellect over to."-Matthew
Matthew knows this that I have been one of his critics, and I just want to add that this is the stupidest thing that I ever read from Matthew and one of the dumbest things ever posted on Catholic info period. He deserves some sort of special recognition for that because frankly, it isn't easy to do.
edit- And everytime someone makes a sort of comment of constructive criticism to matthew he starts a new thread where he does a rant so that all readers can't really connect the two threads and the comments end up far separated from each other in the long run on different threads so that in the future noone can connect the dots but I'll put it out there...this thread and this "rant" was started after suggesting that Matthew should speak with a priest about recommending Feenyite chapels. Let's put it into context shall we.
-
Feeneyism is heretical. Surely it is 'communicatio in sacris' with a heretical sect? A Donatist Mass doubtless appeared Catholic. A Feeneyite priest may preach in favour of his heresy, corrupting all of his listeners.
-
We got only one Society chapel, here in Tulsa, and there's so little money that they only have Mass every other week.
I try to go to it, basically because it's a TLM that starts at 3pm, and I'm on the night shift.
-
Dumb, unreasonable, and impractical list.
I bet there are probably only 22 priests on the entire globe that one could probably get a check on every category.
We have to realize that the world isn't perfect and the Church is in crisis.
BEGGARS CAN'T BE CHOOSERS!
If you have an FSSP or an SSPX chapel an hour away, thank God for that great luxury that only, probably, less than 10% of the world has. Read scripture, attend the sacraments (especially penance and Mass), pray the rosary, fast, mortify yourself, and you'll be fine.
Enough of this crap. It's a mockery of the Faith.
-
What is wrong with you Matthew? The faith of the priest is somehow missing from your infallible list of commandments.
Furthermore it seems intentional, because you go on to say that it doesn't matter if the priest is feeneyite. Feeneyism is a heresy.
It's seems pharisaical to complain about the Ambrose charlatan but to encourage people to attend feeneyite masses.
And here is the full bloom of SSPXism........ :facepalm:
-
edit- And everytime someone makes a sort of comment of constructive criticism to matthew he starts a new thread where he does a rant so that all readers can't really connect the two threads and the comments end up far separated from each other in the long run on different threads so that in the future noone can connect the dots but I'll put it out there...this thread and this "rant" was started after suggesting that Matthew should speak with a priest about recommending Feenyite chapels. Let's put it into context shall we.
I disagree with your presumed motives, but it does make it rather difficult to follow a conversation.
For the record, a priest was asked, as you recommended.
-
edit- And everytime someone makes a sort of comment of constructive criticism to matthew he starts a new thread where he does a rant so that all readers can't really connect the two threads and the comments end up far separated from each other in the long run on different threads so that in the future noone can connect the dots but I'll put it out there...this thread and this "rant" was started after suggesting that Matthew should speak with a priest about recommending Feenyite chapels. Let's put it into context shall we.
I disagree with your presumed motives, but it does make it rather difficult to follow a conversation.
For the record, a priest was asked, as you recommended.
I didn't state it as a motive but merely an effect (that a comment on one thread leads to a rant on another).
-
"I don't need a priest to sign my intellect over to."-Matthew
this thread and this "rant" was started after suggesting that Matthew should speak with a priest about recommending Feenyite chapels. Let's put it into context shall we.
I don't beat around the bush. If I believe something, I'll just come right out and say it. Don't accuse me of being deceptive.
I believe we should all have a spiritual director if possible, frequently consult with faithful Traditional priests on various topics and highly value their opinion over our own.
What I *meant* was I'm not looking for a cult leader -- a priest to serve up Kool-aid which I am to drink, with my brain shut off.
I should have been more clear on that. It's true that obedience (which is subjugating one's own will, opinions, and ideas to another) is an important virtue, and it's a good idea to take a position of humility and obedience with a priest of God -- assuming he's Traditional of course.
There are different kinds of obedience. Blind obedience, for example. I don't believe that kind is called for from rational creatures. Or else why did God give us an intellect, if we weren't to use it?
-
"I don't need a priest to sign my intellect over to."-Matthew
this thread and this "rant" was started after suggesting that Matthew should speak with a priest about recommending Feenyite chapels. Let's put it into context shall we.
I don't beat around the bush. If I believe something, I'll just come right out and say it. Don't accuse me of being deceptive.
I believe we should all have a spiritual director if possible, frequently consult with faithful Traditional priests on various topics and highly value their opinion over our own.
What I *meant* was I'm not looking for a cult leader -- a priest to serve up Kool-aid which I am to drink, with my brain shut off.
I should have been more clear on that. It's true that obedience (which is subjugating one's own will, opinions, and ideas to another) is an important virtue, and it's a good idea to take a position of humility and obedience with a priest of God -- assuming he's Traditional of course.
There are different kinds of obedience. Blind obedience, for example. I don't believe that kind is called for from rational creatures. Or else why did God give us an intellect, if we weren't to use it?
Judas was one of the twelve chosen by Christ. And we were warned that wolves would be among the chosen flock from the beginning starting with Judas.
Therefore, we must discern whether our priest or our bishop is of God.
However, first we must pray for them that they may repent and follow Christ.
-
Before I want to write I want to make this abundantly clear I AM NOT A FEENEYITE. Fr. Leonard Feeney was not condemned a heretic for his theories on the different baptisms. He was condemned because he refused to go before a hearing summoned by Pius XII. Yes, I believe that his stance on baptism would have been condemned. We must be very careful about what we say.
-
It's pretty clear that Matthew covered the "faith of the priest" in point 2b:
-- "Does the priest defend Tradition, and attack Modernism, Vatican II and the Conciliar religion sufficiently to teach/warn his congregation of their severe, grave dangers?"
If a priest is defending Tradition and attacking the errors of the day (i.e. Modernism and V2), you can bet his Faith is solid. I agree with the "checklist" 1000%. If all the traditionalists had agreed to this 40 yrs ago, we'd be quite a force! But alas, we have allowed petty arguments to keep us divided. We are just as much to blame for the Church's situation as the modernists in Rome!
-
But I, for one, am not interested in THAT kind of Traditional Catholicism. I only want to be a simple Traditional Catholic, keeping the Faith during this Crisis in the Church. I don't need a team to root for, or a priest to sign over my Intellect and/or Free Will to.
I think you went a step too far there (besides the point you clarified already). Of course you have a "team" which you root for. What you mean to say is that you don't follow any group blindly and so your "team" may change from time to time (SSPX --> Resistance, for example).
I think it's quite reasonable to expect that many will have strong opinions on things not listed on your short list and will be in search of priests who share their opinions. After all, truth is singular and so someone has to be correct and therefore the other is in error. But, the point here is that when there is not a priest supporting your position of choice in your area, you shouldn't avoid undoubtedly valid sacraments which are available to you.
Yes, keep supporting and building support for your "team", but don't consider yourself to be a de facto home-aloner unless you do not have an option which meets a "short-list" criteria.
-
At Centro's recommendation, I did ask a priest specifically about Fr. Bitzer and Mass in that part of KY.
He gave me an overview of Fr. Bitzer's history including his "Feenyite" position as well as a few other controversial points.
And so, I asked hypothetically if I were in KY, should I go to Mass at OLMC, with Fr. Bitzer, or neither.
His response was that when undoubtedly valid Sacraments are available, you should go. With the world as messed up as it is today, we need access to the Sacraments.
I'm sure we could all dream up a number of worthy exceptions to that general recommendation, but he didn't seem to think either "Feenyism" or Fr. Pfeiffer's present situation would qualify.
(Note: Mass said by Ambrose would fail the basic test.)
-
But I, for one, am not interested in THAT kind of Traditional Catholicism. I only want to be a simple Traditional Catholic, keeping the Faith during this Crisis in the Church. I don't need a team to root for, or a priest to sign over my Intellect and/or Free Will to.
I think you went a step too far there (besides the point you clarified already). Of course you have a "team" which you root for. What you mean to say is that you don't follow any group blindly and so your "team" may change from time to time (SSPX --> Resistance, for example).
I think it's quite reasonable to expect that many will have strong opinions on things not listed on your short list and will be in search of priests who share their opinions. After all, truth is singular and so someone has to be correct and therefore the other is in error. But, the point here is that when there is not a priest supporting your position of choice in your area, you shouldn't avoid undoubtedly valid sacraments which are available to you.
Yes, keep supporting and building support for your "team", but don't consider yourself to be a de facto home-aloner unless you do not have an option which meets a "short-list" criteria.
Yes, I was specifically limiting myself to where I should attend Mass. My personal preferences, my observations as to the general spiritual health of the group, who is doing the best job of helping Catholics during this Crisis, etc. are beside the point when it comes to just attending Mass.
Now when it comes to where I send my son to try out a vocation, where I spend hours volunteering, where I pour my heart, soul and resources into, which chapel I advertise on the bumper sticker of my family vehicle -- there are certainly a few more questions that I would want to look into.
And yes, I have a favorite. But if I were on the road and that "favorite" were not available, I would not stay home on Sunday.
My point, precisely, is that people are mixing up their "preference" or "favorite" with being able to attend Mass at all. That is a huge mistake.
Too many Catholics have lost the art of attending Mass for God's sake alone. They have lost the skill of attending a Mass at a chapel (or with a priest) they aren't very wild about.
They either want to stay home on Sunday, or go to a chapel where they can be 100% rah-rah and wear team colors and everything. Sorry, you don't always get that choice.
-
People are forgetting what Mass is about.
It's not a show of support for your favorite priest of choice. It's to WORSHIP GOD, especially on SUNDAY, the day we are commanded by the Church to keep holy, especially by attendance at Mass.
-
People are forgetting what Mass is about.
It's not a show of support for your favorite priest of choice. It's to WORSHIP GOD, especially on SUNDAY, the day we are commanded by the Church to keep holy, especially by attendance at Mass.
Which Church are you attending Mass ? Or at least could you give me a hint about good priests in your area?
The reason I'm asking you is to compare good chapels with lists on the web (traditio.com website has a list but I don't know if it's to be trusted).
-
People are forgetting what Mass is about.
It's not a show of support for your favorite priest of choice. It's to WORSHIP GOD, especially on SUNDAY, the day we are commanded by the Church to keep holy, especially by attendance at Mass.
Which Church are you attending Mass ? Or at least could you give me a hint about good priests in your area?
The reason I'm asking you is to compare good chapels with lists on the web (traditio.com website has a list but I don't know if it's to be trusted).
St. Dominic's Chapel with Fr. Zendejas and Fr. Garcia
-
Matthew is rightly distinguishing between things that are core Catholic dogma accepted by all good Catholics and those things that are lower-level application (theological opinion). There's no dogma about whether or not the Holy See is currently vacant. These are conclusions to which various Catholics arrive by reasoning and syllogism and the application of Catholic principles to concrete circuŠ¼stances. Similarly with various brands of "Feeneyism"; there's no dogmatic decree one way or another. THE MERE FACT that these questions are disputed among people who otherwise show every sign of professing to have the formal motive of faith demonstrates that they are sub-dogmatic. This is where Matthew's tradcuŠ¼enism comes into play. To go around dogmatically declaring x, y, or z to be outside the Church for disagreeing with your clear-cut dogmatic analysis on some issue or another is borderline schismatic. You're considering outside the Church someone whom the Church does not consider to be outside the Church. These lay excommunications are getting really really old and tiresome. Didn't our Lady of Fatima say that the "dogma" of the faith would always be preserved? I think that there's a reason that she chose the word "dogma", a reference to a very limited set of core Catholic beliefs, those that it would be heretical in the strict sense to reject. Could she have implied that everything outside of this core would be up for grabs?
In addition, I have no problem attending a properly-offered Eastern Rite Liturgy (except some that have been tampered with excessively).
-
My minimalist, back-to-basics "Trad Checklist" for evaluating a chapel:
1. Is the priest properly ordained in the old rite (by a bishop who himself was ordained/consecrated in the old rite)?
2. Was the priest FORMED in a Traditional seminary, or at least has the priest fully converted to Tradition? Does the priest defend Tradition, and attack Modernism, Vatican II and the Conciliar religion sufficiently to teach/warn his congregation of their severe, grave dangers?
3. Does the priest say the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Mass in Latin, and only give/recommend the other Sacraments according to the Pre-Vatican II form as well?
If a chapel fails any of these 3 points, it's not a Traditional chapel and is not a safe place for us to park our families during the Crisis.
On the other hand, if it passes these 3 tests, it is SAFE ENOUGH TO TRUST WITH AT LEAST OUR SUNDAY MASS ATTENDANCE.
I personally would add one other test. Regardless of whatever POSITION the priest/chapel has taken about one or another disputed issue, if they're dogmatic about it, I consider that a red light because the spirit of schism dwells there. It's like a deep rot that infects the souls of anyone in contact with it.
So, for instance, although I myself lean "Feeneyite", I would generally not go to Mass offered by a priest who adopted a Dimond-like dogmatism, who would declare anyone who believes even in Thomistic BoD to be a heretic and refuse them the Sacraments. Conversely, I would not go to Mass offered by a priest who refused Sacraments to Feeneyties. I would not go to the Mass of someone who refused the Sacraments to a Sedevacantist or to an R&R or even to a Novus Ordo Catholic who appears otherwise well disposed, etc. That's why I would stay away from Boston, KY also -- because they appear to have severed communion with other Catholics for no acceptable reason. So there too you have the subtle rot of a schismatic sectarianism.
-
My minimalist, back-to-basics "Trad Checklist" for evaluating a chapel:
1. Is the priest properly ordained in the old rite (by a bishop who himself was ordained/consecrated in the old rite)?
2. Was the priest FORMED in a Traditional seminary, or at least has the priest fully converted to Tradition? Does the priest defend Tradition, and attack Modernism, Vatican II and the Conciliar religion sufficiently to teach/warn his congregation of their severe, grave dangers?
3. Does the priest say the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Mass in Latin, and only give/recommend the other Sacraments according to the Pre-Vatican II form as well?
If a chapel fails any of these 3 points, it's not a Traditional chapel and is not a safe place for us to park our families during the Crisis.
On the other hand, if it passes these 3 tests, it is SAFE ENOUGH TO TRUST WITH AT LEAST OUR SUNDAY MASS ATTENDANCE.
I personally would add one other test. Regardless of whatever POSITION the priest/chapel has taken about one or another disputed issue, if they're dogmatic about it, I consider that a red light because the spirit of schism dwells there. It's like a deep rot that infects the souls of anyone in contact with it.
So, for instance, although I myself lean "Feeneyite", I would generally not go to Mass offered by a priest who adopted a Dimond-like dogmatism, who would declare anyone who believes even in Thomistic BoD to be a heretic and refuse them the Sacraments. Conversely, I would not go to Mass offered by a priest who refused Sacraments to Feeneyties. I would not go to the Mass of someone who refused the Sacraments to a Sedevacantist or to an R&R or even to a Novus Ordo Catholic who appears otherwise well disposed, etc. That's why I would stay away from Boston, KY also -- because they appear to have severed communion with other Catholics for no acceptable reason. So there too you have the subtle rot of a schismatic sectarianism.
This would sum up Matthew's "cult" test which he's mentioned before, but didn't include on this list. I think I would agree with you if they've reached the point of denying sacraments over their position, but Boston hasn't done that. Nonetheless, from only the information given publicly, Fr. Bitzer or possibly even the local SSPX would seem to be a safer place for receiving sacraments, in my opinion.
-
How about this -- if you live in Boston, KY, how about you check it out ONCE.
You think God is going to send you to Hell for going there ONCE to see for yourself? Please.
If you find yourself in the environs of Boston, KY, this whole issue is not just academic for you. You are being tasked with figuring this out, with the spiritual welfare of your family at stake. YOU OWE IT TO YOURSELF AND YOUR FAMILY to look into all your options, and pick the best one.
If you foolishly follow the second-hand advice of someone whose advice shouldn't be followed, it will be your fault if he was wrong and you followed him.
For something lasting years and hundreds of visits like family attendance at a Traditional chapel, a man shouldn't delegate the job to anyone else. A man should take the reins and check them out himself. If he cares about his family's spiritual welfare and takes his duties seriously, that is.
Anything less is laziness and apathy -- both physical and spiritual.
If more people heeded this advice, we'd have more support for support-worthy chapels, less support for bad chapels/priests, and less thriving cults.
-
And yes, there is a "maybe" number 4 in my list, "Is it a cult", but I decided it doesn't belong alongside the other 3. It's not quite as fundamental.
You don't want to attend Mass even ONCE with a doubtful priest, or a priest not saying the Tridentine Mass.
But you COULD theoretically isolate yourself from the cult mentality, at least for occasional Mass attendance.
I suppose being a solidly "Trad" priest who sufficiently attacks Modernism and Vatican II would also be optional in this way -- you could survive just attending his valid Masses. This item obviously disqualifies the Indult. But what Indult priests aren't also doubtfully ordained by a Novus Ordo bishop? So it's kind of a non-issue.
I suppose it would be an issue for SSPX attendance. The priests say a valid Tridentine Mass and they are validly ordained. But so many of them don't speak out against Vatican II, or they try to warm us up to it. So they must be "yellow lighted" or caution given -- you can attend with caution.
I suppose I'll have to further develop this "checklist".
-
I decided to move this to a new thread, with a REVISED list, since I'm always after more clarity, accuracy, and truth.
I invite you all to continue the conversation there:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Short-Basic-Checklist-for-evaluating-a-Trad-Chapel