"Traditional" Catholic?

[GB05]

A relative of mine attends a “Traditional Catholic” mass and has been inviting me to attend. My red flag went up when she said “the bishop is in town”.

At first I figured it was just a Latin Mass or something, but a friend tells me that “Traditional Catholic” means they do not follow Rome.

Can anyone give me information about this?

 

[dhgray]

GB,

First of all, **W E L C M E **to Catholic Answers Forum. We hope you hang around and post for a while.

I’m glad you asked that question, I have heard the term before but never really payed attention before now. I too will look forward to the answer.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The word “traditional” doesnt mean what you think. Most of those guys are doing their own thing even if the CC doesnt allow it. Most of those groups are no better than Luther himself.

The might tempt you with some conservative lines, but if you look into the “movement” they miss the mark of the position they claim to hold.This movement is the most recent break off from the CC, similar to the Orthodox split.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

GB05:

A relative of mine attends a “Traditional Catholic” mass and has been inviting me to attend. My red flag went up when she said “the bishop is in town”.

At first I figured it was just a Latin Mass or something, but a friend tells me that “Traditional Catholic” means they do not follow Rome.

Can anyone give me information about this?

Well, this could have two possible meanings. The first is that he has a preference for the Tridentine “Latin Only” Mass. His comment on the Bishop may indicate that there is a visiting bishop who is conducting a Tridentine Mass.

The other, and more sinister, is that your friends submits to a sedevacantist sect, which means he rejects the reforms of Vatican II and any pope since then. He believes that the papal see is vacant and awaits a “legitimate” successor. I don’t bring up the forbidden “S” topic for discussion, just as a point that you may want to research on your own.

 

[Genesis315]

GB05:

A relative of mine attends a “Traditional Catholic” mass and has been inviting me to attend. My red flag went up when she said “the bishop is in town”.

At first I figured it was just a Latin Mass or something, but a friend tells me that “Traditional Catholic” means they do not follow Rome.

Can anyone give me information about this?

From my understanding, in general a “traditional Catholic” is just someone with a love for the Tridentine Mass (the one from before Vatican II, in Latin). Parishes can say this Mass with permission from the bishop. However, there are specific groups that have gone into schism over this issue and who say the Tridentine Mass without permission. One being the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) whose priests practice the Tridentine Mass illicitly in their own chapels. Then there’s the sedevacanist groups (they believe the last four popes have not been real popes, the seat of Peter is empty to them) like the SSPV and I think they would call themselves “traditional Catholics” too.

The point is, if you’re going to a Latin Mass, make sure it is licit.

 

[EENS]

“Traditional” is used for many different people, beliefs, etc. In its most general sense, it means what has been done for nearly all time and in nearly all places by the Chuch (i.e. the Traditional Latin Mass–not just the new Mass in Latin but the Mass as promulgated to last “in perpetuity” by Pope St. Pius V and which had been substantially the same since Pope St. Gregory the Great, c. AD 600). The one thing all “Traditionalists” have in common is that we all believe in the Traditional Latin Mass. Moreover, we believe in outside the Church no salvation (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, or EENS)–not the modernist view pushed by nearly all the hierarchy today that says many who are not in the Church can be saved by invincible ignorance, which encompasses just about everyone who is not in the Church already (and even those who have left the Church!!) We all believe in a restoration of Tradition–as Catholics we believe in both Scripture and Tradition. Traditionalists want just that: a restoration of Tradition. If a person is quoting a document before c. 1950, he is probably a Traditionalist… neo-cons and liberals are usually quoting from Vatican II and new documents. Traditionalists prefer to follow the “tried and true” method, which is often shunned in this modernist world, where everything of historical and traditional merit is trodden under foot for the new age philosophy, theology, and even secular matters such as architechure and the like. In any event, it would be quite impossible to explain in few words exactly what “Traditionalist” means… but after having debated and discussed with many people, you should get an idea in your head of a few distinct categories, namely; Neo-con(servative), conservative, traditionalist, liberal, etc. The neo-con usually is a part of what can be rightly called the “John Paul the Great” cult. They think whatever the Pope says should be taken as if God Himself said it; these sorts of people are usually conservatives in morals, yet they do take liberal stances where the Pope has, e.g., the death penalty. They will defend without fail the ridiculous false ecumenism seen at Assisi, the Fatima sacrilege, and even the kissing of the satanic koran! The conservative is pretty much the same as the neo-con, but he does not think the Pope is perfect and will not defend the ridiculous sorts of things he does, such as the kissing of the koran, the conferenes with dhali lama, the anointing by a pagan witch or whatever she was, the Masses with half naked (literally) female lectors, the liturgical dancers at Bl. Mother Teresa’s beatification, etc., etc., etc. The liberal does not believe the Dogmas of the Church. He will outrigh state this. He will not, as the neo-con, try to twist what these dogmas mean to make it something else (e.g. outside the Church no salvation). Instead, he will simply reject the Church’s teaching on abortion, on contraception, on the necessity of the Catholic State (neo-con and Americanists usually do likewise; keep in mind Americanism was condemned as heresy by Pope St. Pius X), on Outside the Chuch no Salvation.

The Traditionalists alone seem to be logical. They address and hold all the Dogmas of the Church, even the “hard” ones, e.g. outside the Church no salavation, the condemnation of modernity and modernism/liberalism by the Church, especially by St. Pius X. They also will defend and rightly so the justness of the Inquisition and Crusades, noting that one of the greatest and holiest men of all time, St. Pius V, was in fact head inquisitor and quite harsh, expellig the perfidious Jews from the Papal States (which is another issue it seems only Traditionalists are logical on–which is that the Jews are accursed and are “adversaries to all men” [II Thess. ii.15] and who “killed the Lord Jesus” [ibid], and will not hesitate to say: “Jews, God hates you!” [St. John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church). In any event, it would take literally hundreds of pages to really demonstrate every single issue of Traditional vs. neocon vs. conservative vs. liberal, etc. I will suffice to answer your question regarding Traditional Masses:

[see next post]

 

[EENS]

There are many kinds of “Traditional Masses”, all according to the pre-Novus Ordo (that is 1962 or earlier) Missal. Some are from the SSPX (Society of St. Pius X), who have suspended Orders but whose Masses are completely valid, or from the SSPV (Society of St. Pius V), who are sedevacantists (believe John Paul II is not the real Pope–there is no Pope), whose Masses also are valid, but this organization is not a part of the Church. There are also Orders such as the Fraternity of St. Peter or the Institute of Christ the King who are simply Ordered Priests who say the 1962 Missal in “Indult” parishes across the United States. I attend a Fraternity parish near my home. These are 100% valid and licit, and are even encouraged by Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Ecclesia Dei. There are other Masses that are the same as what the Fraternity or Institute would offer, but they are offered by Diocesan Priests who also offer the Novus Ordo (new Mass). Then there are what are called “Independent” Priests. They do not want to submit to any Bishop, and they offer Masses independent of any organization. All of these Masses I have listed are VALID, since a valid Mass only requires a valid Priest, the correct form (words–they all use the same Words of Consecration), correct matter (bread and wine), and correct intention (to confect the Sacrament). All of these conditions are met for all Traditional Latin Masses. The only problem arises when a person is going to a Mass not approved by the Church. In such an instance, it would wrong UNLESS it is impossible to get to another Traditional Mass. The Code of Canon Law permits reception of the Sacraments from people who are not in full Communion with the Church, so long as the Sacraments are valid in that religion/sect, IF the person has a “physical or moral impossibility” of going to a Priest in full communion with the Church. Physical impossibility would be if it is too long to drive. Moral impossibility could be just about anything, since it is not defined in the Code of Canon Law. Many interpret this to mean: if you do not want/cannot stand going to the Novus ordo because of all the abuses, sacrileges (e.g. Communion in the hand), etc., then it is OK to attend a Traditional Mass that is not 100% in communion with Rome. Of course, if it is possible to go to a Traditional Mass in communion with Rome, that is what you should do.

Anyway, I hope that helps as an explanation. God bless.

 

[Exporter]

GB05,

I read the above posts as you did also, I believe. If you don’t know any more that the “average” Catholic I can see that you may not only confused , but a bit aprehensive about attending a “Traditional Mass”.

Do yo believe that all the Roman Catholics were somehow having nonCatholic Masses back in 1955 and 1965? Were these Masses , as some have said, “illicite”?. That word “illicite” is meant to scare you I am afraid.Some of the so-called modern Catholic Churches have leotard wearing dancers and have the Priest walk out into the parishoners - does that sound Catholic?

This attack on those who think the “Traditional Mass” is somehow wrong says these people don’t believe the Pope is fully a Pope. That is wrong! It was the US Bishops who over reacted to Vatican II. Vatican II never did say that the Latin Mass was to be eliminated, and it didn’t say that the English mass was to be said by all. It simply said that that the language of the country was to be available when it was needed. The Latin Mass was NOT outlawed. So it’s not the Pope who should be blamed, it is the US Bishops.

 

[EENS]

Building on the point of Exporter, Pope John Paul II had a group of 8 Cardinals come together ot gather information about the Traditional Mass, and ALL of them said: NO BISHOP CAN FORBID A PRIEST FROM SAYING THE TRADITIONAL MASS, period. It made to respect to public or private or otherwise. It said: No Bishop can forbid a Priest from saying the Traditional Mass. It also concluded (all but one agreed) that the Traditional Mass was never abrogated (that is, it is still in force as a Mass of the Latin Rite).

 

[Genesis315]

Exporter:

GB05,

I read the above posts as you did also, I believe. If you don’t know any more that the “average” Catholic I can see that you may not only confused , but a bit aprehensive about attending a “Traditional Mass”.

Do yo believe that all the Roman Catholics were somehow having nonCatholic Masses back in 1955 and 1965? Were these Masses , as some have said, “illicite”?. That word “illicite” is meant to scare you I am afraid.Some of the so-called modern Catholic Churches have leotard wearing dancers and have the Priest walk out into the parishoners - does that sound Catholic?

This attack on those who think the “Traditional Mass” is somehow wrong says these people don’t believe the Pope is fully a Pope. That is wrong! It was the US Bishops who over reacted to Vatican II. Vatican II never did say that the Latin Mass was to be eliminated, and it didn’t say that the English mass was to be said by all. It simply said that that the language of the country was to be available when it was needed. The Latin Mass was NOT outlawed. So it’s not the Pope who should be blamed, it is the US Bishops.

I didn’t mean to scare with “illicit,” but technically aren’t SSPX Masses illicit according to the Vatican? They themselves say they are being disobedient.

Here’s some info from EWTN, take it for what it’s worth:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX2.HTM

 

[MrS]

EENS:

wish that all posters were as informative as as relatively brief as you have been… you are in a small group which I think most posters appreciate.

Now… if we can just get more to actually read posts like yours…

 

[TNT]

GB05:

A relative of mine attends a “Traditional Catholic” mass and has been inviting me to attend. My red flag went up when she said “the bishop is in town”.

At first I figured it was just a Latin Mass or something, but a friend tells me that “Traditional Catholic” means they do not follow Rome.

Can anyone give me information about this?

WHO is the bishop? Is he a bishop put in place by the Vatican? If so, then by all means attend it.
Just give us the name of the bishop, please. Then we can inform you. Otherwise, we know not WHO is involved.
What is the order of the priest who normally says the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM)? FSSP, SSPX, SSPV or independent?
What bishop is he under?
NO one can really gve you an accurate answer until you provide the needed information.
Thanks.
ps ALL the responses prior to this are speculative regarding your situation.

 

[EENS]

Genesis315:

I didn’t mean to scare with “illicit,” but technically aren’t SSPX Masses illicit according to the Vatican? They themselves say they are being disobedient.

Here’s some info from EWTN, take it for what it’s worth:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX2.HTM

I don’t know if they are illicit, but their Orders are suspended. I suppose the question is whether or not it is illicit to celebrate public Masses and perform duties of a Priest publically while being suspended. I don’t know the answer to that question, but it seems that it would be illicit.

In any event, it is important to note that the SSPX is merely suspended, and nothing more. They are not heretics. They are not schismatics. They believe Pope John Paul II to be the valid Pope, and they do not hold any beliefs that are heretical (at least not any more than the average Priest/Bishop today does–their views on outside the Church no salvation are not the same as mine, and they seem to be a contradiction of Trent, but that is another whole matter of itself). So, we ought not think the SSPX itself is schismatic. It is not. The organization is not the same as the Orthodox, etc. It is no different than the Jesuits during their suppression. Moreover, the reason that this is clear is that schismatics (e.g. the ‘Orthodox’) DO have valid Sacraments (since they fulfill the requirements for a valid Sacrament as listed in a previous post). Moreover, their marriages and confessions are also valid, since they have their own hierarchy (schismatic hierarchy), and from those valid (but illicit) Bishops (who are outside the Church but still valid Bishops nonetheless), they receive the authority for these Sacraments. (Do not be confused–I am not an ‘orthodox’ sympathizer–I detest their schism just as I would all othese outside the Church, as there is no hope for salvation for them or anyone outside the Church.) Now, the SSPX does NOT have this authority to administer Sacraments, so since this authority must be delegated from the Bishop in order to confect the Sacraments, their Sacraments of Marriage and Penance are invalid. (For example, if a Priest from the US went to Rome, he would not have faculties granted by the Bishop to hear Confessions, so his confessions would be invalid, since the Pope [the local Ordinary] has not granted such faculties. This can be said likewise of the SSPX. They are under the authority of the local Ordinary, and they do not have these faculties; therefore, their Sacraments are invalid.) It is important to notice the contrast here. The schismatics DO have valid Sacraments, since they are (albeit illicitly) under the authority of their illicit Bishops. Now, if the Church recognized the SSPX as a separate organization and outside the Church, then the Church would say that their marriages and confessions are invalid, yet this is NOT the stance taken by Rome from the Ecclesia Dei Commission. They do not recognize the SSPX as its own religion under its own Bishops. For that reason, the Church has deemed their confessions and marriages invalid, indicating that the SSPX is NOT in schism; they are simply suspended, the same way the Jesuit Order was suspended in time’s past.

(Gen 3.15: Just a reminder; you asked me a question under the Language of the Last Supper thread–I responded, if you wanted to make a response. God bless)

 

[bear06]

I must have missed the Church document that states the the SSPX is not in schism. All I can find is a plethera of Church documents that say they are? Here’s a bunch in one easy location thanks to Mr. O. jloughnan.tripod.com/schmex2.htm

Also, all of their sacraments are not valid. Confession and Marriage cannot be valid in an SSPX church because they do not have faculties.

I’m not sure I understand you post. In one sentence you say they are not schismatics and in another you condemn their schism.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

EENS:

In any event, it is important to note that the SSPX is merely suspended, and nothing more. They are not heretics. They are not schismatics. They believe Pope John Paul II to be the valid Pope, and they do not hold any beliefs that are heretical… since they have their own hierarchy (schismatic hierarchy), and from those valid (but illicit) Bishops (who are outside the Church but still valid Bishops nonetheless), they receive the authority for these Sacraments. (Do not be confused–I am not an ‘orthodox’ sympathizer–I detest their schism just as I would all othese outside the Church, as there is no hope for salvation for them or anyone outside the Church.) Now, the SSPX does NOT have this authority to administer Sacraments, so since this authority must be delegated from the Bishop in order to confect the Sacraments, their Sacraments of Marriage and Penance are invalid…

Im no expert but when I looked around on the sspx page those guys seem like con artists no better than Luther at the end of the day. They open the page with all these sweet caring prayers for their “beloved” PJP2, yet if you read around their page they knife Him left and right. I dont see how the CC can ever let them come into full communion ever again, all that would do is encourage future “mass” disobedience. By letting them come back the CC will look like the bad guy guaranteed. And if you read the faq’s page it starts out very well put together, but as you read the last few they start pulling fast ones and try to justify and find loopholes in the laws that they claim justifies their actions. There is no way around what they did, they started ordaining “priests” knowing full well what they were doing, they were acting like Luther thinking that it was their duty to save the CC but in the end they are nothing more than the latest sect to break off the Mother Church.

 

[EENS]

bear06:

Also, all of their sacraments are not valid. Confession and Marriage cannot be valid in an SSPX church because they do not have faculties.

I’m not sure I understand you post. In one sentence you say they are not schismatics and in another you condemn their schism.

I am sorry I appear to have missaid something. I originally said:
“Now, if the Church recognized the SSPX as a separate organization and outside the Church, then the Church would say that their marriages and confessions are invalid, yet this is NOT the stance taken by Rome from the Ecclesia Dei Commission.”

What I meant to say was: “Now, if the Church recognized the SSPX as a separate organization and outside the Church, then the Church would say that their marriages and confessions are *valid *[the same way She says the orthodox have valid Sacraments], yet this is NOT the stance taken by Rome from the Ecclesia Dei Commission.”

Also, all of their sacraments are not valid.

How exactly do you come to this conclusion? The only things necessary for a VALID (I am not speaking of licit, merely valid) Sacrament are the correct: form, matter, intention, and minister. They have the correct form (the same Words used by the Church for all ages–the words used by Christ Himself, according to the Council at Florence). They use the correct matter (bread and wine). You must assume they have the correct intention (as you would any other Priest), and they certainly have the correct minister: a validly ordained Priest. Therefore, the Sacraments they administer are VALID. The only exceptions are Confession and Marriage, since in that case, they do not have a valid minister (since their Priests do not have faculties, which makes the person administering the Sacrament invalid).

Nonetheless, it could most certainly be concluded that those who attend the Masses of the SSPX and who in their conscience think they are doing what is correct, it can be said that “the Church supplies” for these Confessions, an idea that has always been supported for the Sacraments in general by the Church, and which was also supported by the Council of Trent. Moreover, of course, these persons could have a perfect contrition, which supplies for the Sacrament, as they clearly show a desire to receive the Sacrament (since they go to Confession but simply do not know that it is invalid). This sort of stance has been taken by the Church in time’s past. For example, if a person goes into a Catholic Church during the time for Confession, sees the candle is lit outside the Confessional, walks in, confesses, and receives absolution, thinking and knowing (for all practical purposes) that the person on the other side of the confessional screen is a validly ordained Priest, he IS forgiven (“the Church provides”) if the person is an imposter, that is, if he is not a validly ordained Priest, or if he is not even a “priest” at all, simply a layman or whoever just sitting behind the screen pretending to be a Priest.

In any event, I would like to know how exactly you conclude that all their Sacrament (including the Holy Eucharist) are invalid.

Matthew

 

[EENS]

Catholic Dude:

Im no expert but when I looked around on the sspx page those guys seem like con artists no better than Luther at the end of the day. They open the page with all these sweet caring prayers for their “beloved” PJP2, yet if you read around their page they knife Him left and right. I dont see how the CC can ever let them come into full communion ever again, all that would do is encourage future “mass” disobedience. By letting them come back the CC will look like the bad guy guaranteed. And if you read the faq’s page it starts out very well put together, but as you read the last few they start pulling fast ones and try to justify and find loopholes in the laws that they claim justifies their actions. There is no way around what they did, they started ordaining “priests” knowing full well what they were doing, they were acting like Luther thinking that it was their duty to save the CC but in the end they are nothing more than the latest sect to break off the Mother Church.

When exactly did Luther think it was his duty to save the Church?

I am not an SSPXer, but I question the logic of this post. Can someone not say the Pope is a valid Pope but criticize what he does? For example, just because I believe John Paul II to be Pope, does that mean I must accept the outrageous and sacrilegious Assisi “service”, as well as his kissing of the satanic book, the koran? Must I, therefore, accept, too, the New Mass without question, without criticism, as if all other Rites pale in comparision to it? Ought I accept that his view on the death penalty is the authentic teaching of the Church based on Tradition, simply because he believes it? This sort of reasoning is completely ridiculous, as there are hundreds of Popes before our current Pope who contradict him on all of these issues. Who is right; 100 Popes or the current Pope, especially considering the current Pope’s reasoning is shoddy? As I said, I am not SSPX, but your reasoning for calling them schismatic is simply illogical.

 

[TNT]

EENS:

…

When exactly did Luther think it was his duty to save the Church?
Never.
I am not an SSPXer, but I question the logic of this post.
I’m married to one…
Can someone not say the Pope is a valid Pope but criticize what he does?
**Yep. In charity. Some popes have been moral reprobates.
Others have stained the Apostolic Faith.
**Must I, therefore, accept, too, the New Mass without question, without criticism, as if all other Rites pale in comparision to it?
**Mass discipline is not infallible, SO OPEN TO CRITICISM.

but you may not say that the Church has promulgated a sinful ritual.
**Ought I accept that his view on the death penalty is the authentic teaching of the Church based on Tradition, simply
because he believes it?
NOPE.
This sort of reasoning is completely ridiculous, …
YEP.
I am not SSPX,
I’m married to one…
but your reasoning for calling them schismatic is simply illogical.
YEP.
But whose acccounting logic in a liberal world? They survive and count on UNCRITICAL obedience. (Kings new Clothes tale comes to mind.)
And, of course lots of money. Which I think God is working on.

 

[bear06]

The only exceptions are Confession and Marriage, since in that case, they do not have a valid minister (since their Priests do not have faculties, which makes the person administering the Sacrament invalid).

In any event, I would like to know how exactly you conclude that all their Sacrament (including the Holy Eucharist) are invalid.

Uh, I think you need to re-read my post. I said exactly what you said, I think. Not all of their sacraments are valid. Of course the Church always provides for the emergency faculties in case of death. They do not have faculties for marriage and confession just as you said. I never said that their Eucharist was invalid. My comments were only limited to confession and marriage.

 

[bear06]

EENS:

When exactly did Luther think it was his duty to save the Church?

I am not an SSPXer, but I question the logic of this post. Can someone not say the Pope is a valid Pope but criticize what he does? For example, just because I believe John Paul II to be Pope, does that mean I must accept the outrageous and sacrilegious Assisi “service”, as well as his kissing of the satanic book, the koran? Must I, therefore, accept, too, the New Mass without question, without criticism, as if all other Rites pale in comparision to it? Ought I accept that his view on the death penalty is the authentic teaching of the Church based on Tradition, simply because he believes it? This sort of reasoning is completely ridiculous, as there are hundreds of Popes before our current Pope who contradict him on all of these issues. Who is right; 100 Popes or the current Pope, especially considering the current Pope’s reasoning is shoddy? As I said, I am not SSPX, but your reasoning for calling them schismatic is simply illogical.

Read Pastor Aeternus on where you must be obedient AND submissive to the Pope.