Traditional Catholics in Communion with Pope

[dominikus28]

if you commit mortal sin and its forgiven you don’t go to hell. its not that simple. God forgives sin as long as its sincere repentence and we endeavour not to do it again. its almost impossible for any man not to have commited at least one mortal sin in their life because we are imperfect human beings. God knows this, that is why He said to Saint Faustina, “the greater the sinner, the more right He has to God’s mercy”. a man can be completely consumed with mortal sin, yet if he is sincere and truly sorry for his sins, he can be forgiven. its those that boldly and uncaringly refuse to repent their mortal sins before they die that will be judged as well are when we meet God. the decision to send one to hell is up to God. to say that if you commit mortal sin you go to hell is really a scarey statement because it makes pdeople think that they are not going to be forgiven when in fact that is not true. they can be forgiven.

Sorry, I thought it was obvious, but I’m assuming too much. I meant that if you commit mortal sin and die, without going to confession, then you are pretty much going to hell. I mean, I know that if you do a perfect contrition, then your sins will be forgiven, but if you commit a mortal sin, and don’t go to confession, then die, it is pretty safe to assume that the person is going to hell.
I don’t mean to say that if you know someone who has committed mortal sin and died without confession, that you should assume they go to hell, because you don’t know whether they made a perfect contrition or God had such mercy on them or whatever. What I meant was that if you are in a state of mortal sin, and you die, you go to Hell. Whether you make a perfect contrition is an exception to that or is even not relevant, since the sin is forgiven. Hope that clears things up.

The reason I asked that in the first place was because I realised that there was no education about the Catholic faith, and mortal and venial sins were not mentioned. I am 19yrs old, I have gone to Catholic schools and have only learned what Catholicism has in common with other Christian religions, like ‘God loves you’, ‘God is love’, etc which is all good, but I think, especially at Catholic schools, other things should be addressed too, such as the basics of the actual faith. The only other things we learned was the rosary, but I thought that is was just another prayer who someone made up some time ago, I had no idea of the history and power of this prayer.

Thank God that I was blessed with an interest in my faith, the I learned all except the obvious, from asking a guy who is now in seminary and from Catholic.com and these forums. So I think there is a problem with the education. Also, I remember watching an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond where Ray has to explain to his daughter why God sends people to Earth if they are all going to heaven anyway. Obviously that is false. I know it is fiction, but some people watch that and take away that ‘everyone is going to heaven’ and I’m sure that represents what alot of people think.

 

[HCC]

Dear dominikus28,

This took some time to post. Was this list at all helpful in answering your question?

A short list of traditional groups in communion with the Pope:

institute-christ-king.org/home/
fssp.org/en/index.htm
canons-regular.org/
canonsregular.com/
barroux.org/
clearcreekmonks.org/
chemere.org/
institut-philipp-neri.de/
randol.org/
riaumont.net/
chanoines-lagrasse.com/
carmelitemonks.org/
ordo-militiae-templi.org/
unavoce.org/

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

THe problem is Bishop Lefebvre rejected things that were taught definitively by the Magisterium. De facto that’s excommunication. Specifically, when he ordained Bishops contrary to the Pope’s (and Catholic Church’s) teaching.

Hi DiggerDomer,

I didn’t propose anything contrary to what you say above. For sake of argument, let us assume that the Society is excommunicated and that Abp. Lefbvre died excommunicated. I was merely pointing out that one SSPX priest affirmed the formal validity of the Ordinary Form Mass and Holy Orders. This suggests that he is not alone.

If someone is guilty of murder, it is still unjust to accuse them of other crimes and faults of which they are not guilty. I do not suggest that the original poster deliberately misrepresented the SSPX view of Ordinary Form Sacraments. But surely it is important that we avoid exaggeration of the errors of anyone, even schismatics and heretics. If evidence exists to mitigate or exonerate the guilt of criminals or the errors of those separated from the Church, should it be suppressed? I thought I had a duty to point out what appeared to me to be an erroneous evaluation of the SSPX understanding of the Ordinary Form Sacraments as expressed in the original post.

Regards,

Rory

 

[JReducation]

Dear dominikus28,

This took some time to post. Was this list at all helpful in answering your question?

A short list of traditional groups in communion with the Pope:

institute-christ-king.org/home/
fssp.org/en/index.htm
canons-regular.org/
canonsregular.com/
barroux.org/
clearcreekmonks.org/
chemere.org/
institut-philipp-neri.de/
randol.org/
riaumont.net/
chanoines-lagrasse.com/
carmelitemonks.org/
ordo-militiae-templi.org/
unavoce.org/

I notice that on your list there are many institutes of consecrated life, societies of apstolic life and clerical institutes; but they all celebrate the EF exclusively. Clarify for me. Are you saying that only those institutes that celebrate the EF exclusively are Traditional Catholics? If that’s the case, I would have to disagree. There are many of us who do not celebrate the EF exclusively and are very traditional.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

Hi DiggerDomer,

I didn’t propose anything contrary to what you say above. For sake of argument, let us assume that the Society is excommunicated and that Abp. Lefbvre died excommunicated. I was merely pointing out that one SSPX priest affirmed the formal validity of the Ordinary Form Mass and Holy Orders. This suggests that he is not alone.

If someone is guilty of murder, it is still unjust to accuse them of other crimes and faults of which they are not guilty. I do not suggest that the original poster deliberately misrepresented the SSPX view of Ordinary Form Sacraments. But surely it is important that we avoid exaggeration of the errors of anyone, even schismatics and heretics. If evidence exists to mitigate or exonerate the guilt of criminals or the errors of those separated from the Church, should it be suppressed? I thought I had a duty to point out what appeared to me to be an erroneous evaluation of the SSPX understanding of the Ordinary Form Sacraments as expressed in the original post.

Regards,

Rory

There is no need to assume excommunication. It’s a fact. Thanks.

 

[HCC]

I notice that on your list there are many institutes of consecrated life, societies of apstolic life and clerical institutes; but they all celebrate the EF exclusively. Clarify for me. Are you saying that only those institutes that celebrate the EF exclusively are Traditional Catholics? If that’s the case, I would have to disagree. There are many of us who do not celebrate the EF exclusively and are very traditional.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I was answering the poster’s original question. Based on the criteria he gave, I felt those groups come closest to what he is looking for.

Your future posts would be better served by answering the OP’s question with your own solutions and examples.

 

[Timothysis]

Sorry, I thought it was obvious, but I’m assuming too much. I meant that if you commit mortal sin and die, without going to confession, then you are pretty much going to hell.

You have no right nor stature to make such a declaration. Even the Church does not make such a bold claim; it is left to Christ as to who and who will not be saved.

The Church is bound by Christ but Christ is not bound by the Church; he can do whatever He wishes. You would do well to refrain from deciding you is and who isn’t going to hell because it is not your place to decide.

 

[Timothysis]

. I believe that the new mass is valid, but it is bad because things are more relaxed and people slowly fall away from the faith.

Tell me how one can consider a form of the Mass “bad” when it licitly and validly consecrates the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ for the sanctification of our souls in accord with the authority of the Church, the pope and the bishops?

Your opinion that the current Ordinary Form of the Mass as being “bad” is meaningless. You should refrain from speaking about things that you obviously know nothing about.

 

[Student09]

You have no right nor stature to make such a declaration. Even the Church does not make such a bold claim;
.

I’m not sure what catechism you are reading, but this is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1033: To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.”

 

[LoyalViews]

Those of us that use and claim the " moniker" of Traditional Catholic, use it to distinguish our preference for the 1962 Rite. Most of us still attend the OF Mass at least on occasion. Most of us accept the OF as a valid form of the Latin Rite. Its our preference to attend the EF when ever we can. Some are fortunate enough to be able to attend the EF every day. Some only once in a while.

Amen!!

To answer the OP’s question, there are many orders and societies which say the Latin Mass, and have a fre-Vatican II spirituality, but, accept Vatican II, as to reject Vatican II is to reject the Church, as Vatican II is one of the ecumenical councils of the Holy Church of Christ, the Catholic Church.

Some traditional orders and societies are…

the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter
Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest
Institute of Christ High Priest
Transalpine Redemptorists (Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer)

There are also many religious orders with traditional monastaries within them. To name a few of the major ones, the Dominicans, Carmelites, Norbertines, Trinitarians, Benedictines, the list is endless!

But, it was how Priests interpreted Vatican II. That is what folled the liturgy up. Vatican II was not a rupture of tradition, it was a renewal of tradition. If someone attends the Vernacular (OF) Mass, they are still traditional Catholic. One is a traditional Catholic, when they follow the teachings of the church with no question, keep the churches tradition in the upmost manner and reverence, and respect, and obey the Holy Father, our Pope. When I hear traditional Catholic…like I am, I think of the EF of the Mass, like me. People who attend the OF and obey the church with no question are just as Catholic as those who attend the EF and obey the church with no question. God Bless!

 

[At_Trent]

no rejecting V2 means rejecting the God given authority of the Church. If you mean rejecting changes that were instituted by some priests and bishops in the name of V2, which were not actually part of any V2 documents, that is another thing entirely. There are plenty of Catholics who accept the full authority of the pope and the magesterium, including fully embracing what V2 actually said and did, while rejecting the perversions enacted illicitly using its name. They are called “Catholics”.

Pretty much describes me

 

[JReducation]

Amen!!

To answer the OP’s question, there are many orders and societies which say the Latin Mass, and have a fre-Vatican II spirituality, but, accept Vatican II, as to reject Vatican II is to reject the Church, as Vatican II is one of the ecumenical councils of the Holy Church of Christ, the Catholic Church.

Some traditional orders and societies are…

the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter
Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest
Institute of Christ High Priest
Transalpine Redemptorists (Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer)

There are also many religious orders with traditional monastaries within them. To name a few of the major ones, the Dominicans, Carmelites, Norbertines, Trinitarians, Benedictines, the list is endless!

But, it was how Priests interpreted Vatican II. That is what folled the liturgy up. Vatican II was not a rupture of tradition, it was a renewal of tradition. If someone attends the Vernacular (OF) Mass, they are still traditional Catholic. One is a traditional Catholic, when they follow the teachings of the church with no question, keep the churches tradition in the upmost manner and reverence, and respect, and obey the Holy Father, our Pope. When I hear traditional Catholic…like I am, I think of the EF of the Mass, like me. People who attend the OF and obey the church with no question are just as Catholic as those who attend the EF and obey the church with no question. God Bless!

Thank you for thsi great example and explanation. This was the point of my queston above when the list of religious communities and secular institutes was posted. There are many religiuos communities and secular institutes that are traditional Catholics, but do not celebrate the EF or if they do so, they do it as an extraordinary celebration, not as the daily celebration.

I can’t think of Franciscans more traditional thn the Friars of the Renewal, but they celebrate the OF. The Dominicans are very traditional, but they celebrate the OF. The Trappists are too and they celebrate the OF, so do the Fathers of Mercy and the Socieity of the Our Lady of the Trinity (Fr. Corapi’s community).

We have to be careful how we use the word traditional not to exclude those who do not celebrate the EF on a daily basis. Actually, the SSPX is not traditional in that sense. They are traditional in their liturgy and their theology. They are very unique in their lifestyle. Prior to Vatican II there were very few societies of secular priests, which is what the SSPX is. They are not consecrated religious. They have never claimed to be that. They borrowed a paradigm that was first created in the USA by Maryknoll. If I’m not mistaken, Maryknoll may be the first priestly society in the Church. It was certainly one of the few along with Missionhurst, Opus Dei, Schonstatt and Pierists.

These societies were the exception to tradtion. Tradition was that a priest was either a diocesan (secular) or a religious (consecrated). There were no other options. It was after Vatican I that priestly societies came into existence. But they were not common and needed the permission of the Holy See, which was rarely given. The Holy See wanted priests to belong to a diocese or to become religious. It was Vatican II, in Perfectae Caritatis that instituted the secular priestly institute for the first time in history. The SSPX came into existence under the protection of Vatican II. Priestly societies were no longer an exception to tradition. They became incorporated into the tradition of the Church.

That’s why I say that we must be careful how we apply the term “Traditional”.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Timothysis]

I’m not sure what catechism you are reading, but this is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Then perhaps you should pay better attention to what you quote; "1033: *To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.” *

This is vastly different from saying “I meant that if you commit mortal sin and die, without going to confession, then you are pretty much going to hell.”

A person can be free from mortal sin and still refuse to accept God’s merciful love by their own free choice and find themselves in a state of self-exclusion from God. Likewise, a person guilty of mortal sin but of contrite heart and soul can not be said to be “pretty much going to hell.” Your statement is not taught by the Church.

 

[Timothysis]

That’s why I say that we must be careful how we apply the term “Traditional”.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Brother JR,

Do you believe that the same applies to the notion of “modernism?” It is my experience that you can ask ten different people on these forums to define modernism and receive ten different definitions.

Thanks!

 

[Student09]

A person can be free from mortal sin and still refuse to accept God’s merciful love by their own free choice and find themselves in a state of self-exclusion from God. Likewise, a person guilty of mortal sin but of contrite heart and soul can not be said to be “pretty much going to hell.” Your statement is not taught by the Church.

But the poster you were replying to clarified his statement. He said that it was also possible to make an act of perfect contrition and be forgiven.

But I am confused as to how you are using the term “mortal sin.” If someone refuses God’s mercy and love at their death, are they not committing a mortal sin? And if someone makes an act of perfect contrition, then they are no longer in a state of mortal sin - their sin has been forgiven.

 

[JReducation]

Brother JR,

Do you believe that the same applies to the notion of “modernism?” It is my experience that you can ask ten different people on these forums to define modernism and receive ten different definitions.

Thanks!

I would have to say yes to this question, because I have seen the term “modernism” used incorrectly many times. I’m of the opinion that labels are a dangerous thing and should be used with caution. This does not mean that we do away with labels. That’s impossible, if we are to communicate using language. But it is good practice to use them sparingly. Back when I was still teaching, my students would often use labels to answer a question and I would often ask them to describe what they were talking about. These were theology students. It was quite common for a student to describe what he meant and then conclude with, "Never mind, that was the wrong word. What I mean is . . . "

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Timothysis]

I would have to say yes to this question, because I have seen the term “modernism” used incorrectly many times. I’m of the opinion that labels are a dangerous thing and should be used with caution. This does not mean that we do away with labels. That’s impossible, if we are to communicate using language. But it is good practice to use them sparingly. Back when I was still teaching, my students would often use labels to answer a question and I would often ask them to describe what they were talking about. These were theology students. It was quite common for a student to describe what he meant and then conclude with, "Never mind, that was the wrong word. What I mean is . . . "

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Agreed!

Thank you for your time and please pray for the repose of my parents.

Thank you!

 

[dominikus28]

Dear dominikus28,

This took some time to post. Was this list at all helpful in answering your question?

A short list of traditional groups in communion with the Pope:

institute-christ-king.org/home/
fssp.org/en/index.htm
canons-regular.org/
canonsregular.com/
barroux.org/
clearcreekmonks.org/
chemere.org/
institut-philipp-neri.de/
randol.org/
riaumont.net/
chanoines-lagrasse.com/
carmelitemonks.org/
ordo-militiae-templi.org/
unavoce.org/

Yes thanks alot, that was very helpful

You have no right nor stature to make such a declaration. Even the Church does not make such a bold claim; it is left to Christ as to who and who will not be saved.

I am not making a declaration. Thanks for correcting me, I’m here to learn. I have always understood that if you commit die in venial sin, you will not go to Hell, but to purgatory and if you die in mortal sin, you will go to Hell. I don’t deny that if he wanted to, Jesus could make a person who dies in mortal sin go straight to heaven. And I’m not saying that someone will definitely, no exceptions, go to hell if they die in mortal sin. I understand that a perfect contrition can be made or that Jesus can have mercy and not allow you to go to Hell. What I mean is hypothetical, generally speaking, if a person dies in a state of mortal sin, it is generally understood that that person is on the path to hell. That is basically my motivation for going to confession, because I don’t want to go to hell. Or is it that everyone who doesn’t want to go to hell, won’t? If I am incorrect, please correct me. I’m sorry if I am not being clear or am not explaining my view clearly, if you think I could say it in a better way, please tell me.

Tell me how one can consider a form of the Mass “bad” when it licitly and validly consecrates the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ for the sanctification of our souls in accord with the authority of the Church, the pope and the bishops?

Your opinion that the current Ordinary Form of the Mass as being “bad” is meaningless. You should refrain from speaking about things that you obviously know nothing about.

I’m sorry, I didn’t communicate my point very well in stating this. I believe the Novus Ordo mass is perfectly valid and licit, since it is protected from being invalid or illicit by the Holy Spirit and the Church has the authority to do this, etc.
What I meant to say is not that the mass is bad, but that the attitude of some people after the introduction of the new mass was bad. People are more relaxed and don’t show reverence to the Blessed Sacrament, they are not quite before the mass has started, etc. Most ‘Catholics’ I know, don’t know their own faith. The only reason they are Catholic is because their parents take them to church sometimes. This is very concerning for me. And I cannot imagine a Tridentine mass, where people are talking in church, and see attending mass as just a ‘chore’. There is a wide variety of information on the internet, some claiming that Pope John XXIII was a freemason and tried to destroy the Church with Vatican II. I don’t know whether this is true or not, all I know is that education among Catholics has declined regarding their own faith. I believe that it is possible that Pope John XXIII was a mason, but I also believe that Vatican II was valid and licit and protected by the Holy Spirit. I know that the Church has had some bad Popes throughout history - I don’t know whether Pope John XXIII was one of them, but whether he was or not, doesn’t matter to me, I just know that the Church is still valid and licit in every way. So what I meant, was the situation which arose after the introduction of the new mass, the trend of people no longer being educated fully about the faith, is bad. I attend a Novus Ordo mass, and the priest is a good one. I don’t believe that the mass is bad or illicit or invalid. But I believe that if the mass was Tridentine, that people would be more reverent.

I apologies if I have made any statements which are offensive. Please know that I believe in everything the Church teaches, so if I wrongly believe that the Church teaches which it doesn’t, please correct me, and I will immediately change my belief to be consistent with the teachings of the Church.

 

[zab]

What I meant to say is not that the mass is bad, but that the attitude of some people after the introduction of the new mass was bad. People are more relaxed and don’t show reverence to the Blessed Sacrament, they are not quite before the mass has started, etc. Most ‘Catholics’ I know, don’t know their own faith. The only reason they are Catholic is because their parents take them to church sometimes. This is very concerning for me. And I cannot imagine a Tridentine mass, where people are talking in church, and see attending mass as just a ‘chore’.

I think it is a mistaken notion to believe that a Tridentine Mass will solve all of the problems. We still had the Latin Mass when I attended grade school. As a child I noticed that many of my classmates did not seem to have the understanding and appreciation of our Faith as I did. I knew that most of them only went to church on Sunday and did not participate in the other devotions. There are people who grew up with the Latin Mass who haven’t been to church in decades and feel that there is no hope of salvation for them in the Catholic Church because they got divorced and remarried. I even have siblings who grew up with the same devout parents as I who did not have the same appreciation and understanding of their faith as I and some even lost their faith. While I did learn my Catholic Faith from the example set by my devout parents as well as from the Baltimore Catechism that we memorized in school, I don’t think there was any catechesis going on for the adults at that time. We have much more catechesis going on in our parish today then there was when I was growing up. Our pastor gives weekly talks with sessions of different topics. We have a very informative parish website. Several groups meet for Bible Study. We occassionally have guest speakers about the Catholic Faith. There are many more opportunities for the Sacrament of Confession. We still have First Friday Devotions and Benediction every Wednesday night before the talks. There is so much more going on in the way of adult education today than used to be years ago. And yet not everyone takes advantage of what is available. There will always be those who will do the bare minimum. Today is no different.