Traditionalist Catholics and Russian Orthodox Old Believers

[NewsTheMan]

The more moderate traditionalists are not intrinsically anti-N/O, but the farther right will claim it’s intrinsically deficient and once you’re about to fall off the edge of the earth they’ll claim the entire missal and rites are invalid.

It is one thing to hold that the NO is deficient; it is quite another to say it is invalid. The FSSP/SSPX/most Ecclesia Dei communities hold the former position; most sedevacantists hold the latter position.

To say it is invalid is to question the intrinsic as well as extrinsic merits. Questioning the intrinsic merits is what makes it evil and wrong to say that the Mass is not the Mass when clearly the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is in fact made present at the NO. Of course, the sede’s say that it isn’t and thus in circular arguments they defend themslves.

Questioning the extrinsic merits is not dangerous at all, and it is perfectly legitimate to question and to hold to the position that the NO Mass is deficient in it’s extrinsic merits.Nobody questions the intrinsic merits, for that would be to questions Christs sacrifice which is perfect.

For a paper on this written by an FSSP Priest look here.

What leads to sedevacantism is also what leads many to protestantism in these tumultuous times too - namely, the view that one cannot question anything at all coming from the Church or the Pope. Of course, there must be serious reasons for doing so, and it must be done properly and for valid things. When people see the shocking statistics and in their hearts they just know that the NO is deficient - people tell them they are heretics because nobody can question the Pope’s decision to promulgate a new Mass. The truth is that the NO Mass can be abrogated and it will not mean a thing for the Church’s doctrine regarding the Pope. To think that the Pope is infallible and prudential and wise in all matters is making a god out of him. Thus, people start leaving in droves because they cannot reconcile the faith being watered down so much with what they are being told about the pope. It is an extreme. Here is how I saw it being put, in a different context.

When a modern ‘Conservative’ Catholic sees the Pope kissing a koran - they think they should kiss Korans too.
When a modern sedevacantist sees the Pope kissing a koran - they call him a heretic.

Both of the above are a result of seeing every action that the Pope does as absolutely unquestionable and infallible.

When a modern liberal Catholic sees the Pope kissing a koran - they think Islam is as good as Christianity.
When a modern Traditional Catholic sees the Pope kissing a koran - they recognize that as a person he has made a prudential error, but that this does not affect his office in the least.

 

[MartyrForJesus]

It is one thing to hold that the NO is deficient; it is quite another to say it is invalid. The FSSP/SSPX/most Ecclesia Dei communities hold the former position; most sedevacantists hold the latter position.

To say it is invalid is to question the intrinsic as well as extrinsic merits. Questioning the intrinsic merits is what makes it evil and wrong to say that the Mass is not the Mass when clearly the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is in fact made present at the NO. Of course, the sede’s say that it isn’t and thus in circular arguments they defend themslves.

Questioning the extrinsic merits is not dangerous at all, and it is perfectly legitimate to question and to hold to the position that the NO Mass is deficient in it’s extrinsic merits.Nobody questions the intrinsic merits, for that would be to questions Christs sacrifice which is perfect.

For a paper on this written by an FSSP Priest look here.

What leads to sedevacantism is also what leads many to protestantism in these tumultuous times too - namely, the view that one cannot question anything at all coming from the Church or the Pope. Of course, there must be serious reasons for doing so, and it must be done properly and for valid things. When people see the shocking statistics and in their hearts they just know that the NO is deficient - people tell them they are heretics because nobody can question the Pope’s decision to promulgate a new Mass. The truth is that the NO Mass can be abrogated and it will not mean a thing for the Church’s doctrine regarding the Pope. To think that the Pope is infallible and prudential and wise in all matters is making a god out of him. Thus, people start leaving in droves because they cannot reconcile the faith being watered down so much with what they are being told about the pope. It is an extreme. Here is how I saw it being put, in a different context.

When a modern ‘Conservative’ Catholic sees the Pope kissing a koran - they think they should kiss Korans too.
When a modern sedevacantist sees the Pope kissing a koran - they call him a heretic.

Both of the above are a result of seeing every action that the Pope does as absolutely unquestionable and infallible.

When a modern liberal Catholic sees the Pope kissing a koran - they think Islam is as good as Christianity.
When a modern Traditional Catholic sees the Pope kissing a koran - they recognize that as a person he has made a prudential error, but that this does not affect his office in the least.

Your back my friend! YAY!

 

[NewsTheMan]

Your back my friend! YAY!

LOL no, just wanted to post that. Leaving again

 

[jwinch2]

No you weren’t responding to me since I hadn’t typed anything before that, so that’s a given, but it’s a public forum and any member here in good standing has the ability to respond to any quote or comment. If you have a problem with that then take it up with the mods.

What I have a problem with is you responding to a direct question to another member in a needlessly sarcastic and insulting manner. Yes, you can respond to any post a member makes. However, my post was an obvious question directed to a specific person. You chose to interject yourself into that situation and I am calling you out on it.

You can respond to this if you like. However, since I am adding you to my ignore list, I will not see it.

 

[Cavaradossi]

(Note: By traditionalist I mean a Catholic who associates with and holds the views of groups including the SSPX but also other, more extreme groups, as opposed to a Catholic with a love for traditional devotion and liturgy but does not hold malice towards VII, the N/O, etc.)

In 1666 Patriarch Nikon of Moscow instituted liturgical reform to bring Russian liturgical practice up to speed with contemporary Greek practice. A group of RO’s revolted and formed the Old Believers, rejecting Nikonian liturgical reforms and keeping the old Russian liturgy and while some reunited centuries later (“United Believers”), most stayed in schism. Some went as far as to say that the entire priesthood was annihilated by Nikonian reforms, and only baptism (if that) remained.

In 1970 Patriarch Paul VI of Rome D) promulgated a new Missal to fulfill the conditions of liturgical reform discussed at Vatican II. A group of Catholics rejected these reforms and became Traditionalists, rejecting the Mass of Paul VI and keeping the old Latin liturgy, resulting in multiple schisms, and while some have retuned (FSSP), many remain in schism, and some go as far to say that the priesthood and Mass were invalidated by Pauline reforms, the Pope is an antipope, and only in their own sect(s) remain the sacraments.

Does anyone else see a parallel?

It’s a bit different, in that the old believers were also persecuted and killed for their beliefs by secular powers, while the traditional Catholic movement has thankfully resulted in little (or to my knowledge none at all) bloodshed of those who oppose VII.

 

[jwinch2]

It’s a bit different, in that the old believers were also persecuted and killed for their beliefs by secular powers, while the traditional Catholic movement has thankfully resulted in little (or to my knowledge none at all) bloodshed of those who oppose VII.

Were the old believers persecuted by an arm of the Orthodox Church or by the Russian government? This is the first I am hearing of this situation.

Peace,

 

[Cavaradossi]

Were the old believers persecuted by an arm of the Orthodox Church or by the Russian government? This is the first I am hearing of this situation.

Peace,

The Tsars typically persecuted the old believers, believing them to be a danger to the state. Some were relatively light-handed, others imprisoned and executed old believers.

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

…] resulting in multiple schisms, and while some have retuned (FSSP), many remain in schism, …]

The priests of the FSSP were never in schism or anywhere near it.

 

[Hesychios]

The priests of the FSSP were never in schism or anywhere near it.

The FSSP is derived from the SSPX.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Because sometimes you don’t know what you are reading until after the fact
Last time I checked this was traditional forum to discuss to love for the old mass.

Please read Good Subjects for TC Thread

TC Forum does not exist “to discuss the love for the old mass.” TC Forum exists to discuss Catholic Tradition(s), of which the EF is one of many.

Traditionalists have no more claim on the TC Forum than Mainstream Catholics have on Apologetics. Every forum has an area. Posters are free to use all of them, as long as they remain within the subject area of that forum.

This thread is starting to derail. Either get back on track or I will close it.

Thank You.

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

The FSSP is derived from the SSPX.

And the SSPX was in a very different situation pre-Econe Consecrations, which is when the founders of the FSSP left the SSPX. Do do not tar those good men who love the Latin Church with the same brush as the SSPX that rebelled against Papal authority.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I think there are some parallels but also some differences; specifically: many of these Catholics aren’t against the NO itself but the abuses that came after the VII… also it’s possible to be a “Latin Mass” attending Catholic but not be in schism, and in good standing with the Church, since the TLM has not been abrogated, neither has the 1962 missal whereas in the case of the Russian Orthodox church, the previous missal might have been abrogated (?).

In fact, the Russian Orthodox Church has the canonical Old Rite as one of its two Rites, although many Old Believers are yet to come into communion with the Moscow Pariarchate.

So Old Rite Orthodox likewise don’t have to be in schism.

Alex

 

[mro]

I’m tired of these daily, anti-traditionalist posts.

I don’t understand why everyone gets so worked up about traditionalist Catholics… I see no reason why we can’t have both the vernacular languages and the old latin masses.

It’s a perfectly acceptable compromise…

But i do think there are some parallels between these old believers in russia and **SOME **traditionalists…

Overall I think the vast majority of traditionalists are strong Catholics why are apart of this Church and deserve to have their voices heard…

It doesn’t help when spirit of vatican II people come here and rant and rail against their very own bro’s and sis’s in Christ

 

[Melchior_1]

I don’t understand why everyone gets so worked up about traditionalist Catholics… I see no reason why we can’t have both the vernacular languages and the old latin masses.

I don’t understand why anyone gets worked up over anything that is valid. Vernacular, Latin, traditionalist, charismatic, the different rites, different forms/uses, how the religious do things.

In all of those cases, I don’t get the uproar.