NOTE: This is purely a hypothetical scenario. I have no intention to demean Independent priests, or to infer that they are any more likely per-capita to offer sloppy Masses than priests belonging to some other organization.

An SSPX priest offering a meticulous, liturgically perfect High Mass at St. Isidore's (a building that was built by Trads, and looks like an actual church) with top-notch equipment, plenty of servers who practice regularly, accompanied by a beautiful well-rehearsed schola of 12 men, surrounded by 500 Faithful and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of art, statues, architecture...

...is in the same canonical status, and is just as "disobedient", as ...

some laid-back "independent priest" saying Mass quickly and/or sloppily in a hotel or garage with poor/minimal equipment, using a single altar server who barely knows the responses, for a single family of 5.


Both operate under supplied jurisdiction and are 100% -- not 90%, 99% or 99.9% -- as legitimate as each other.

Let that sink in. Some SSPXers really need to internalize this truth!

WHOOSH!

You totally missed the point. My post was not meant to compliment the SSPX, nor to criticize independent priests. I had hoped that people would understand my point -- apparently I have to spell everything out in laborious detail.

I was drawing up a hypothetical, and since the first large "pre-Vatican II church" looking chapel I could think of was St. Isidore's, I went with the SSPX to be the elaborate Mass. By process of elimination, that left the Independent to be "the simple and sloppy" Mass I was contrasting with.

But it's more than that. Which is more likely to have simpler organization structure, less money in the bank, simpler chapels, smaller congregations, etc.? Independents of course. My point is that the SSPX, due to its size, money, power, years in business, etc. often manages to dazzle the Faithful into confusing it with the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church itself. "Outside the Church there is no salvation. Ergo, outside the SSPX there is no salvation!"

Although a Mass said too fast would indeed be a sacrilege, it wouldn't affect its canonical status, which is the only thing I'm discussing here.

It blows my mind every time I think about it: a small chapel with ZERO in the bank is just as legit as the SSPX which has millions.
A small chapel started in a warehouse or garage last year is just as legit as an SSPX chapel that started in 1975.
A huge chapel church like St. Isidore's packed with 500 parishioners is just as legit as a garage chapel with 1 family in attendance.
A huge, almost 50 year old organization like the SSPX is just as legit as the SAJM which started recently.

Supplied jurisdiction is given by the Church to both, in equal measure.

...and let's not forget:

The SSPX with hundreds of priests has just as much authority to "play Pope", put its foot down, or make definitive decisions on theological controversies -- individually as priests or collectively as a Council -- as a single independent priest.

These statements appear to be boring, common sense assertions that everyone accepts. But do they? Human nature is apt to be dazzled by numbers, appearances, glitz, legacy, reputation, and so on.

I've actually spoken in person with SSPX parishioners who are thus dazzled. They can offer no concrete reasons why the SSPX is somehow more legit or somehow less disobedient than, say, a Resistance chapel. It's all about FEELINGS. When you go to an SSPX chapel, it FEELS more legit for all the reasons I listed above.

NOTE: This is purely a hypothetical scenario. I have no intention to demean Independent priests, or to infer that they are any more likely per-capita to offer sloppy Masses than priests belonging to some other organization.

An SSPX priest offering a meticulous, liturgically perfect High Mass at St. Isidore's (a building that was built by Trads, and looks like an actual church) with top-notch equipment, plenty of servers who practice regularly, accompanied by a beautiful well-rehearsed schola of 12 men, surrounded by 500 Faithful and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of art, statues, architecture...

...is in the same canonical status, and is just as "disobedient", as ...

some laid-back "independent priest" saying Mass quickly and/or sloppily in a hotel or garage with poor/minimal equipment, using a single altar server who barely knows the responses, for a single family of 5.


Both operate under supplied jurisdiction and are 100% -- not 90%, 99% or 99.9% -- as legitimate as each other.

Let that sink in. Some SSPXers really need to internalize this truth!

You are absolutely right and how I wish parishioners at Our Lady of Sorrows in Phx would see that. 

If they would remove their rose colored sspx issued glasses long enough to see the truth maybe they would seek out a independent priest or pool the money they withheld to start a new community. There are options out there

I would go as far as saying that the independent Priest and Mass you described is far more pleasing to God then a Mass with all the bells and smells said in a church built on a foundation of lies,deceit,theft and intimidation.  

Matthew:
I have no problem personally with Matthew's assessment.  But it would be interesting to hear reaction from X to his comments on this thread.

Oh, you're talking about the "should we start a large SSPX replacement organization, or do the loose association of independent priests thing".

If it makes you or others feel better, you can replace "independent" with "SAJM", "MC-SPX", "traditional religious congregation not in union with the SSPX", "Resistance", "SSPV", etc.

I'm purposely passing over the issue that strictly speaking, there should be no "independent" priests. A priest is fundamentally a bishop's helper. The Crisis in the Church doesn't change that. We can't throw Canon Law completely to the wind just because the Church is in crisis.

Therefore, any Trad priest has the obligation to seek out a faithful Trad bishop and place himself under him. It is only when such isn't available (not locally, not in your country, not worldwide) then you can operate completely on your own. But who qualifies for that today? There are at least 4 faithful bishops out there. Any priest choosing to be his own highest authority is doing it for selfish and base reasons. Each priest needs to work with and under SOME bishop, even if his apostolate appears to be quite independent on the surface.

I have never met a laid-back, independent priest that says Mass quickly or sloppily.

Nevertheless, here is my response:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/thought-for-the-day-sspx-deluxe-vs-independent-sloppy/msg649571/#msg649571

I've attended a few sloppy masses in my day. Not many, but priests are only human. They make mistakes. Once, at an FSSP mass, the priest forgot to consecrate the Precious Blood.

The OP makes a good point. Even if a Mass is sloppily done, it is still valid and licit given the right conditions. Supplied jurisdiction is still very a factor (given that the church is occupied by a Modernist sect), whether the priest offering the Mass is SSPX or independent. It was a hypothetical in that even if an independent priest offers a sloppy mass, it's just as valid and licit as a beautiful SSPX Mass. 

Yes, I have a book by St. Alphonsus, where the Doctor says a Priest who tries to just rapidly rush through Holy Mass risks committing mortal sin. Holy Mass is the very Sacrifice of Calvary, the most sublime act of our religion, it must be offered with becoming reverence.

St. Alphonsus says, "here it is necessary to consider what the same Council of Trent says in another place, that the ceremonies have been instituted by the Church in order to excite in the faithful the veneration and esteem due to so great a Sacrifice, and to the most sublime mysteries that it contains. The Church, says the holy Council, has employed ceremonies, whereby both the majesty of so great a Sacrifice might be recommended and the minds of the faithful be excited, by those visible signs of religion and piety, to the contemplation of those most sublime things which are hidden in this Sacrifice.

But instead of inspiring reverence, these ceremonies, when performed with great haste, diminish and destroy the veneration of the people for so holy a mystery. Peter de Blois says that the irreverence with which Mass is celebrated makes people think little of the most holy sacrament. 2 This scandal cannot be excused from mortal sin. Hence in the year 1583 the Council of Tours ordained that priests should be well instructed in the ceremonies of the Mass: For fear that the people intrusted to their care, far from entertaining veneration for our divine mysteries, might regard them only with indifference. How can priests expect by Masses said with such irreverence to obtain graces from God, when during the oblation of these Masses they offend and dishonor him more than they honor him ? Should a priest not believe in the most holy sacrament of the altar, he would offend God; but it is a still greater offence to believe in it, and to celebrate Mass without due reverence, and thus make the people who are present lose their veneration for the holy sacrament ...  in like manner, seculars, seeing a priest treat the Mass with such irreverence, lose their respect and veneration for it. A Mass said with rever ence excites devotion in all who are present at it; but, on the other hand, a Mass celebrated with irreverence destroys devotion and even faith in those that are present." (Dignities and Duties of a Priest, p. 220-222)

Regarding the OP, I think it's preferable to always (1) work together under a Bishop, and (2) if possible, seek and obtain canonical normalization. A Traditional Catholic Bishop almost has a right to exercise habitual jurisdiction and teaching authority over his subjects, both Priests and Faithful, and they in their turn ought to give him respect and obedience as their superior and head. So, why should our Traditional Bishops be compelled to rely only on supplied jurisdiction? They are free to ask for OJ from the Pope, as in fact they did.

Agree or disagree, Bishop Fellay said the SSPX now has Ordinary Jurisdiction, after Pope Francis' act in favor of the Society some years ago, I believe it was in 2015. But more broadly, all of us, unless we are Popes, are bound to be subject to some habitual jurisdiction in the Catholic Church. The Faithful to their Priests, the Priests to their Bishops. That's the normal and natural order in the Church. When Priests are persecuted and that's temporarily not possible, sure, go independent. As soon as it becomes possible again, imho, the right thing for an independent Priest to do is to place himself under obedience and subjection to a Bishop. What I really wish is that the SSPX and Resistance will begin working together some day in the future, some 700 Priests under 7 Bishops, all working united as one.