The evolution of the indult from the 'Agatha Christie' Mass (in the UK) to its official institutionalisation by the ED commission is all about preserving something from a dying culture. The demand for it is evident among a certain class that would not dream of leaving the mainstream for any reason and so that mainstream is happy to cater for them. That is the bargain! Lions of tradition may roar about religious hybridisation but this is exactly want people want to smooth the passage from the austere old to the comfortable new. There is always this impulse to hang onto one's roots at the same time as setting aside or reinterpreting the concepts of bygone ages. A case of new wine served in old bottles. Interestingly, the serious trad movement has moved in the opposite direction. These old concepts are far more important than superficial retro. That is why these two groups dismiss each other so easily.        

Quote from: Wessex

The demand for it is evident among a certain class that would not dream of leaving the mainstream for any reason and so that mainstream is happy to cater for them. That is the bargain!

What nonsense.

I attend many such a mass in and around London and recognise at least half of the faces from my former SSPX days.  I've been a Trad since 1978 and solely attended SSPX masses from 1978 to 1995 when I moved to Australia and found the SSPX there were nutty nutbar and almost as bad as the worst parts of the USA.

The greatest promoter of the indult mass in the UK was when the SSPX went nutty after Fr. Edward Black was posted to Australia.  London lost a large number of the stalwarts and those faces and their children are the very same people at the indult/SP whatever you want to call them masses.

I can remember in the 1980s two Masses on Sunday at Holloway Road that were standing room only and people even outside the doors spilling into the street on occasion.  Now they barely fill one mass.  Those people did not lapse they voted with their feet.  The population of London today is higher than it ws in the 1980s so the SSPX has no excuse for the lower numbers.

You could go to an indult mass in the 1980s, but few did because Father Black had common sense and was a reasonable and mentally balanced man.

In countries where the SSPX has managed to resist the over-zealous nutters the indult masses are small to non-existant because the SSPX meets the needs of people better and newchurch can't be arsed to compete.

What is your definition of an "over-zealous nutter?"

Quote from: soulguard

Quote from: John Grace

Quote

I could never be on the same side as these people. I would never be able to justify them, much less see myself as one of them

You could go back earlier. Whilst one couldn't give a hoot about the neo cons, who walked out of Bishop Williamsons sermon. The pro-Israel brigade. I would question those who stated the Bishop was 'imprudent'.

The one chosen by the Archbishop told the truth yet Trads with children regarded telling the truth as being 'imprudent'.  

It's interesting that those atleast in Ireland who stated the Bishop was 'imprudent' are from an Indult background and for an agreement.

One couldn't side with those.

Bishop Williamson is quite correct in his latest column and personally there are exceptions but most SSPX laity favour a 1950s type Catholicism.

This was often raised at Catholic Action conferences in London that I attended.

You dont see how ridiculous your position is john grace.
You would have people stay away from the SSPX and go only to the resistance who visit this country maybe once a year. You also dont know what you are talking about when you speak of the indult. The indult in this country is very traditional, in fact it rivals the SSPX. If you think that the only place to get tradition is the SSPX you are delusional and full of pride. The Indult has been protected in this country by the bishops and it has grown like wildfire, whereas the SSPX has stayed the same size since it began more or less. The solution is obvious if you consider Francis a valid pope, you must take back the church, the indult is fighting a war for the soul of the church and it will win in about 50 years. Those are the facts. Ive met some nice people at the SSPX but have met a few prideful cultists as well. The mission of the SSPX was not to be a cult, it was to return tradition to the church, you cant do that if you are not in the battle.
and yes I came from the Indult, and would go to it again, because it is a valid mass, simple as.

Ah, if only it were that simple, but it isn't. Why was the indult started?

It is not a question of whether the mass is valid or not, it is the doctrine behind it. Simple as that! The doctrine is all that matters. I came from the FSSP thinking at the time that the "mass is the mass," but left once I realized that it was built on compromise. Now we've had to leave the SSPX for the same reasons.

Standing firm for the true faith, uncompromised, and receiving the sacraments once a year is a lot more beneficial for the battle than accepting the revolution of Vatican II at the Indult and neo-SSPX masses!

I might be able to answer that.

Being from one of the oldest independent traditional Catholic chapels in the entire United States, and home to one of the oldest "indult" churches in the country, I might be able to shed some light on "why."

The ONLY reason that the "indult" was put RIGHT ON THE DIOCESAN GROUNDS here was to drag people away from Saint Michael's. Not only did they see a financial opportunity, but the Diocese of Green Bay could put whatever priests they wanted in there to tow the line for the diocese.

There's a lady at that Church that has been praying practically since they got the Church, a rosary after every Mass publicly so that "the Bishop wouldn't take the chapel away from them," which every single bishop for as long as I can remember (since 1992 at least) has been threatening. The "Latin Mass Association," has to pay rent on the chapel, plus I am sure they have to hand over a certain amount from their collection plate over to the Diocese.

Every priest has to assent that the novus ordo is "just as good as the Latin Mass" in order to even be "allowed" say the "indult" over there, not to mention they have to prove their loyalty by either concelebrating a novus ordo with the Bishop, or say the novus ordo in the Bishop's presence. So, in essence, they make sure they have a compromiser under their fist.

Father Bolduc told us that the Bishop would have recognized Saint Michael's if he had only said ONE novus ordo, which he would not do.

Those are at least two good reasons.

Once they've forced you to compromise -- to offer that one grain of incense to Baal -- they know they have you. You're neutered, neutralized, useless.

If I recall correctly, Archbishop Lefebvre faced this exact same choice. They wanted him to offer JUST ONCE the Novus Ordo Mass, which he refused.

 :dancing-banana:
FYI. This was Sunday's sermon at "XSPX." ABL mentioned by name, and priest in 100% support his stance.
"Watch and pray."

.


Post

One of the best examples of problems with the indult, apart from the compromise their very existence as it is entails, is how they will often leave hosts in the churches they share with the novus ordo and allow them to be used for communion in the hand in the novus ordo. They are thus often complicit in the terrible abuses likely to occur at NO masses. Before Vatican 2 no serious priest would have dreamt of leaving hosts in a place where they would likely be subject to such an abuse.

This is a great point!  Indult Masses often times leave consecrated hosts in the tabernacle which are later subject to abuse by communion-in-the-hand (among other things!) in later Novordien liturgies.  

The Menzingen-denizens would no doubt think that's just fine.  It certainly wouldn't garner any hard core response from the District Office like Fr. Zendejas' sermon did!  We don't have to wonder if that would be their outlook, either, and we don't have to worry they'll make any issue of it, because, if they do, they know that the Resistance would simply reply to them as follows (which is why they hate the Resistance!):  


This is why they HATE the Resistance.  The truth hurts.  They would never dare make any such announcement.  They're entirely transparent.  They wouldn't say or post such a message because it wouldn't mesh with their aggiornamento GREC Newpolicy, that's why!


This is just TOO EASY!  



Let's keep it in perspective:  

When a good priest (Fr. Zendejas) mentions prayer for +W in his sermon, that's unforgivable!  A parishioner has to run out of the chapel and report the offense on his cell phone!  (Or maybe he placed the call while still inside the church!) And the District Office has to JUMP RIGHT ON IT! They don't miss a beat!   This is top priority!  

But leave a few hosts in the tabernacle for a NovusOrdo priest to abuse with all manner of improprieties later that day?  No problem.  No comment.  No cell phone calls, or if there is one, the District Office wouldn't pay any attention.  It's all part of the new approach, the new accommodation with modernist Rome.  The subtle bishop wants to remain on good terms with his new masters.


.