More Catholic than the Pope

  • Thread starter Thread starter asalas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

asalas

Guest
Just read “More Catholic than the Pope” and I am still a little confused. I never new this whole wing of traditional catholicism existed or that it was an issue, my ignorance, but I had a conversation with a SSPXer and I am trying to get educated. My question is how is it that these priest can still say mass if they were ordained illegally? If they were ordained outside of the laws, then these masses would seem invalid. The book didn’t seem to address this, please help?? Thanks.
 
asalas said:
Just read “More Catholic than the Pope” and I am still a little confused. I never new this whole wing of traditional catholicism existed or that it was an issue, my ignorance, but I had a conversation with a SSPXer and I am trying to get educated. My question is how is it that these priest can still say mass if they were ordained illegally? If they were ordained outside of the laws, then these masses would seem invalid. The book didn’t seem to address this, please help?? Thanks.
Click to expand...
That book is kind of reactionary. In my opinion it’s a defensive tactic by the author to prevent the spread of the Old Mass.

His analysis is not applicable to myself or a lot of traditional Catholics, who are in no way “More Catholic than the Pope,” but rather love the TLM, which is completely allowed.
 
asalas said:
Just read “More Catholic than the Pope” and I am still a little confused. I never new this whole wing of traditional catholicism existed or that it was an issue, my ignorance, but I had a conversation with a SSPXer and I am trying to get educated. My question is how is it that these priest can still say mass if they were ordained illegally? If they were ordained outside of the laws, then these masses would seem invalid. The book didn’t seem to address this, please help?? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Your confusion arises from confusing “illicit” with “invalid.” “Illicit” means “illegal” and “invalid” means “not real.” An illegally-ordained priest can still confect a valid sacrament. When a bishop is ordained, he is a bishop for life, no matter what he does. He has the ability to ordain priests. As long as the sacraments are performed correctly (the right matter, form, and intention), they will be valid. This is why the Orthodox Church has had valid bishops and priests since the great Schism in the 11th century. Even the Church of England had valid ordinations and sacraments until they ceased to believe in the transubstantiation, at which point their intention changed and they lost their apostolic succession.
 
PrayforMallory said:
That book is kind of reactionary. In my opinion it’s a defensive tactic by the author to prevent the spread of the Old Mass.
Click to expand...
I haven’t read the book in question, but I don’t think that criticizing the SSPX is necessarily about trying to prevent the Old Mass. I personally love it, and try to encourage it, but I have many problems with the SSPX.
 
HOPEFUL_IN_UK said:
I haven’t read the book in question, but I don’t think that criticizing the SSPX is necessarily about trying to prevent the Old Mass. I personally love it, and try to encourage it, but I have many problems with the SSPX.
Click to expand...
This is true, but I think it’s really important, in the current climate, to point out that the TLM is not the possession of the SSPX. A person can be a “traditionalist” and have no ties to the SSPX.

I’m sympathetic to them, because I love the traditional Mass, but I’ve never been to their Chapels, nor have I ever met anyone who has. As long as it specifically deals with the SSPX, and not those who love the Tridentine Mass, which is a legitimate aspiration according to the Holy Father, then all is well. I don’t think that’s the case though.

A lot of time the SSPX or even sedevacantists are condemned with an eye toward people who are in perfect communion with Rome but go to the traditional Mass.
 
PrayforMallory said:
This is true, but I think it’s really important, in the current climate, to point out that the TLM is not the possession of the SSPX. A person can be a “traditionalist” and have no ties to the SSPX.

I’m sympathetic to them, because I love the traditional Mass, but I’ve never been to their Chapels, nor have I ever met anyone who has. As long as it specifically deals with the SSPX, and not those who love the Tridentine Mass, which is a legitimate aspiration according to the Holy Father, then all is well. I don’t think that’s the case though.

A lot of time the SSPX or even sedevacantists are condemned with an eye toward people who are in perfect communion with Rome but go to the traditional Mass.
Click to expand...
That may be the case, although I have never personally seen that. (Well, maybe. I mentioned going to a Latin Mass to some people in my home parish and they said that I wasn’t going to a real Catholic Church. They simply did not know that there were licit Latin masses. I had to tell them about the Motu Proprio, etc.)

At any rate, I think that if your average bear associates TLM with SSPX and Sede’s, that would be because they’re sometimes so obnoxious and they make more of a ruckus. I don’t know if the majority of people in the SSPX are angry wingnuts, but I know that the ones I’ve noticed sure are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top